opinion: COVELL v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
  No. 6578.
  United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
  Argued March 4, 1936.
  Decided April 6, 1936.
  Tracy L. Jeffords and Edwin C. Dutton, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
  E. Barrett Prettyman and Chester H. Gray, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
  Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, GRONER, and STEPHENS, Associate Justices.
  VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
  This suit was brought in the Supreme Court of the Distinct of-Columbia by appellant, plaintiff below, against the District of Columbia for damages for injuries claimed to have been sustained as the result of a fall on a sidewalk which it was alleged was maintained in a dangerous and poorly lighted condition. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the District. From the judgment thereon, this appeal was taken.
  In her declaration, plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries by reason of the negligence of the defendant in “allowing dirt, stone, pebbles and gravel to accumulate” on the “street and sidewalk known as Holmead Place between Monroe Street and Otis Place, Northwest, in the District of Columbia.” The District is then charged with notice of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk caused by the accumulation of pebbles and gravel thereon.
  Defendant filed a motion to require plaintiff to locate with more certainty the place at which she claimed to have fallen. As a result of that motion, a stipulation was entered into between counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant which fixed the exact location of the place where the plaintiff was thrown as on “the east side of Holmead Place between- Newton and Meridian Streets, N. W., nearly in front of premises numbered 3433 Plolmead Place, N. W., in the District of Columbia.”
  The motion for a directed verdict was sustained upon the ground that the evidence disclosed that plaintiff fell, not on the sidewalk, as alleged in her declaration, but on the tree space or parking between the sidewalk and the curb of the street. This tree space was shown to be 9.10 feet in width. The only witnesses as to the point where the plaintiff fell were the plaintiff herself and her daughter, who accompanied her at the time of the accident. Both witnesses testified positively that plaintiff fell on the cement sidewalk. It was argued that this evidence was discredited by the testimony of the plaintiff that after she stepped up on the curb from the street she had taken but. one or two steps when she fell, and that she must have fallen on the parking instead of on the sidewalk. If she did, this was claimed to constitute a fatal variance.
  While it is true that the plaintiff became somewhat confused in her cross-examination as to exactly how far she proceeded after stepping up on the curb, and as to whether or not there was any parking between the sidewalk and the curb of the street, her testimony and that of her daughter is positive that she fell on the cement sidewalk. In view of this confusion in the testimony, the case was one for the jury, and it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant when there existed an issue of fact so clearly calling for the determination of the jury.
  Many cases are cited by counsel for defendant wherein questions similar to that involved in the present case were decided, and great reliance is placed upon the case of District of Columbia v. Donaldson, 38 App.D.C. 259. In that case, however, there was no conflict in the testimony as to where the accident occurred. It was charged to have occurred on the sidewalk, due to a defect therein, whereas the uncontradicted evidence disclosed that it occurred on a path leading from the sidewalk across the parking to the street. There was no conflict in the evidence as in the present case.
  It is unnecessary to consider at length the question of notice. The contention of the District is that the accident occurred on the parking and that the averments of the declaration failed to charge any defect therein. The declaration, however, does clearly charge that the District negligently permitted the accumulation of dirt, stone, pebbles, and gravel on the sidewalk, and that the accident was caused as the result of this accumulation. There was sufficient evidence, of at least constructive notice, to the District of the condition of the sidewalk to justify the submission of the issue of negligence to the jury; and in view of tlie testimony that the accident occurred upon the sidewalk where this condition existed, the case should have been submitted to the jury on the issues of fact.
  The judgment is reversed, 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