opinion: GAVIN v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.
  No. 8565.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  Argued May 2, 1944.
  Decided May 31, 1944.
  Vincent M. Casey, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Margiotti, Pilgüese & Casey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
  J. Roy Dickie, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dickie, Robinson & McCamey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
  Before JONES and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and GANEY, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  The defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff entered upon a jury’s verdict in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by the defendant’s negligence. The defendant moved the trial court for judgment n.o.v. on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and, in the alternative, for a new trial. Both of those motions were denied. It is only the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment n.o.v., however, which the appellant any longer urges as error.
  Our examination of the record persuades us that under the weather conditions, obtaining at the time and place of the accident, which impeded both sight and hearing, and the positive testimony that the plaintiff had stopped, looked and listened at an appropriate place before entering upon the crossing of the defendant company’s track, made the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence a matter for the jury’s determination. Under the circumstances shown, it could not be said on the basis of any legal standard of care that the plaintiff must have or should have seen or heard the train that struck him, in time to avoid the accident.
  The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
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