opinion: Mario TARABOCCHIA, Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant, v. ZIM ISRAEL NAVIGATION CO., Ltd., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee, v. JOHN W. McGRATH CORP., Third-Party Defendant.
  No. 945, Docket 33492.
  United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
  On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, March 31, 1971.
  Decided Aug. 12, 1971.
  George T. Delaney, Kenneth Heller, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee-appellant.
  Martin J. McHugh, McHugh & Leonard, New York City, for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant-appellee.
  Before MOORE, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  Plaintiff, an employee of John W. McGrath Corp., stevedores, was injured while engaged in an unloading operation from the M/V Beersheva, a vessel owned by Zim Israel Navigation Co. The accident occurred when a loading platform on which plaintiff and a coworker were standing suddenly became dislodged causing plaintiff to fall. The Trial Court found that the platform was not an appurtenance of the vessel and that the cargo sling being used in the unloading operation did not render the vessel unseaworthy. Liability was premised upon the theory that an act of plaintiff’s co-worker caused the accident and that “a ship is rendered unseaworthy when longshoremen make negligent use of seaworthy equipment.” 297 F.Supp. 378, 382. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff against Zim Israel and McGrath did not dispute its indemnity obligation.
  Despite the seeming incongruity of holding that a seaworthy vessel can be instantaneously transformed into an unseaworthy condition by a negligent act of a stevedore’s employee, this court felt bound by previous decisions of the Supreme Court II.and its own decisions in reliance thereon to affirm the judgment. At the same time the court recognized that conflict existed between the Circuits (the Fifth and the Ninth) but said that it was for the Supreme Court “to resolve the apparent conflict between the Circuits.” 417 F.2d 476, 478.
  This resolution has now been made by the Supreme Court in Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 91 S.Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971) but not without vigorous dissent by four Justices thereof. 400 U.S. at 501-504, 91 S.Ct. 514. The majority opinion reviewed the many cases which over the years have created the problem and came to the conclusion that it would be erroneous “where no condition of unseaworthiness existed, to hold the shipowner liable for a third party’s single and wholly unforeseeable act of negligence.” 400 U.S. at 500, 91 S.Ct. at 518.
  Upon Zim Israel’s petition, certiorari was granted (four Justices dissenting), the judgment vacated and the case was remanded “for further consideration in the light of Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 91 S.Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562, decided January 25, 1971.” 401 U.S. 930, 91 S.Ct. 914, 28 L.Ed.2d 211 (1971). Such consideration has now been given in the light of that decision and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
  . Mascuilli v. United States, 387 U.S. 237, 87 S.Ct. 1705, 18 L.Ed.2d 743 (1967); Waldron v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 386 U.S. 724, 87 S.Ct. 1410, 18 L.Ed.2d 482 (1967); Gutierrez v. Waterman SS. Corp., 373 U.S. 206, 83 S.Ct. 1185, 10 L.Ed.2d 297 (1963); Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, 362 U.S. 539, 80 S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960); Crumady v. The J. II. Fisser, 35S U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 445, 3 L.Ed.2d 413 (1959); Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099 (1946); Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed. 561 (1943).
  . Candiano v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 382 F.2d 961, (2d Cir. 1967) rehearing denied, 386 F.2d 444, (2d Cir. 1967) 390 U.S. 1027, 88 S.Ct. 1416, 20 L.Ed.2d 284 (1968); Alexander v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 382 F.2d 963 (2d Cir. 1967).
  . Antoine v. Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc., 376 F.2d 443, cert. den. 389 U.S. 869, 88 S.Ct. 145, 19 L.Ed.2d 146 (1967); Robichaux v. Kerr McGee Oil Industries, Inc., 376 F.2d 447 (1967).
  . Tim v. American President Lines, Ltd., 409 F.2d 385 (1969) and cases cited therein.
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.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "transportation". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: railroad boat, shipping shipping freight, UPS, flying tigers airline truck, armored cars other unclear