Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries and property damage caused by a collision between two automobiles. There was evidence that appellant drove his car on the wrong side of the street, went through a stop sign at an intersection, and collided with appellee’s car which had properly entered the intersection. Appellant testified that his brakes suddenly failed to work and had previously worked properly. Therefore, he contends, he was not negligent in failing to stop. But a garage operator who examined his car after the accident “guessed” that the brake hose, which he found to be broken, had been broken by the accident. The evidence fully supports the jury’s inference that the collision was due to appellant’s negligence.
Appellee carried “$50 deductible” insurance against damage to his car. He testified that he “only signed for the $50, and the insurance company, itself, signed for the rest of the [repair] bill.” We assume that “signed for” means “promised to pay.” Appellant contends that appellee should not have been allowed to recover in the present suit the full amount of the damage to his car, because the insurance company was not a party to the suit. But counsel who represented appellee at the trial happened to be counsel for the insurance company also, and stipulated that the insurance company would give appellant a full release. If there was any theoretical error in permitting full recovery, a question on which we express no opinion, it was made harmless by the stipulation. Appellant’s other contentions are likewise without merit
Affirmed.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: B