opinion: NORVILLE v. HUB FURNITURE CO.
  Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
  Submitted March 7, 1929.
  Decided April 1, 1929.
  No. 4733.
  J. Wm. Tomlinson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
  Edmund L. Jones, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
  Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
  MARTIN, Chief Justice.
  This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by appellant because of the negligence of appellee. At the close of appellant’s testimony the lower court directed a verdict for appellee, and judgment was entered accordingly.
  The declaration charged that the appellee company was a mercantile establishment maintaining a store in the city of Washington ; that it was the duty of appellee to use proper care to keep the entrances to its store and also the public'sidewalk or pavement in front of the store in a safe condition for the ingress and egress of persons having business within the store; but that at the time of the occurrence the appellee negligently permitted the sidewalk in front of the store to have snow, water, ice, and slush upon it, so that it was in a slippery and dangerous condition; and that by reason thereof appellant while leaving appellee’s store slipped upon the snow, water, ice and slush, and fell to the pavement, suffering serious bodily injuries for which he prayed judgment in damages.
  The plea alleged that at the time of the accident appellee’s sidewalks were in good condition and free from snow and ice, and that if appellant foil while walking thereon it was the result of his own negligence and not of any negligence on appellee’s part.
  The testimony tended to show that on the day before the aceident there was an unusually heavy fall of snow, and that at the time of the accident it was cold and windy; that the public sidewalk in front of appellee’s store had snow and ice upon it, and the wind was blowing snow from the awnings and canopy upon the front of appellee’s building to the sidewalk in front of the entrance to the store; that the awning extended over the sidewalk from a foot and a half to two feet, and the canopy hung over the sidewalk from three and a half to four feet; that appellant upon the occasion in question went into the store on business, and when he came out he took two short steps on the sidewalk, and as he took a third step he slipped upon the ice and snow and fell and slid to the curb, receiving severe injuries. It also appears from appellant’s testimony that when he came out of the door he saw the snow blown from the awnings and canopy on to the sidewalk, and that he stepped upon it thereby causing his fall.
  Wo think that these facts do not tend to prove negligence on the part of appellee. The accident happened upon the public pavement in front of appellee’s store. It does not appear that there was any defect in the construction of the store building, or any part of it, contributing to appellant’s fall. It is stated that snow was blown from the awnings and canopy upon the pavement, but it does not appear that the awnings and canopy were defective in any respeet or in any wise unusual in size, location, or other feature. Moreover it appears that appellant saw the snow blown therefrom upon the pavement and stepped upon it, resulting in his fall.
  At the trial below the appellant by his counsel expressly stated that he did not base his claim for a recovery upon the so-called “Snow Law” of the District of Columbia; his claim therefore is to be judged according to the rules and principles of the common law. These are well set out in 13 R. C. L. 415, § 341, as follows:
  “In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, the owner or occupant of property owes no duty to pedestrians to keep the side walk in front of it free from ice and snow coming thereon from, natural causes, * * *• nor does a storekeeper owe any greater duty in this regard to customers leaving his store than he owes to ordinary pedestrians.
  See McGrath v. Misch, 29 R. I. 49, 69 A. 8, 132 Am. St. Rep. 798; Hanley v. Fireproof Bldg. Co., 107 Neb. 544, 186 N. W. 534, 24 A. L. R. 382.
  The instant case comes within these principles, for appellant’s fall occurred upon the public pavement, and was occasioned by conditions arising from a very severe snowstorm, and not from any default in appellee’s conduct or defect in its property.
  The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama