opinion: HALLIBURTON COMPANY, Appellant, v. George B. LOVE et al., Appellees.
  No. 21440.
  United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
  Feb. 11, 1965.
  Leslie S. Lockett, Kleberg, Mobley, Lockett & Weil, Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellant Halliburton Co.
  John N. Barnhart, Houston, Tex., Ben A. Donnell, Keys, Russell, Keys & Watson, Corpus Christi, Tex., Mandell & Wright, Houston, Tex., for appellees.
  Before GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and McRAE, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  Halliburton (defendant) has appealed from an adverse judgment in a personal injury suit filed by George B. Love (plaintiff) to recover for injuries he sustained when one of Halliburton’s pressure hoses unexpectedly broke, and “mud” used in drilling operations spurted out, striking Love in the face and knocking him down. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship.
  Halliburton specifies numerous errors, but its major contentions concern the treatment of the question of insurance by the trial court, and whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Halliburton’s motion for a directed verdict because the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence of negligence to submit that issue to the jury.
  After a careful examination of the record, we cannot conclude that the trial judge committed error in the manner in which he handled the question of insurance. The uncertain and indefinite positions taken by counsel for the respec-ti ve parties when the matter was presented to the court made its disposition more difficult.
  In view of the evidence revealed by the record and the exhibits, we are of the opinion that the question of negligence was properly submitted to the jury and that the trial court did not commit error in refusing to grant Halliburton’s motion for a directed verdict. We find no merit in the numerous other errors specified.
  The judgment is affirmed.
  . The American Insurance Company, as compensation insurer for plaintiff’s employer, Viking Drilling Co., had paid substantial amounts as compensation benefits and medical expenses on behalf of the plaintiff as a result of the injuries.
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 "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear