Task: songer_notice

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Decisions that affect life, liberty, or property must be preceded by adequate notice and an opportunity for a fair hearing. Did the agency give proper notice? Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.
The appeal is from a judgment for damages occasioned hy a train of ears striking an automobüe at a crossing of a street and railroad in Vincennes, Ind. But one proposition is advanced by appeEant, viz., that appellee’s contributory negligence bars his right of recovery.
The engine was hacking six box cars toward and across Sixth street, whereon appellee was driving his automobile. It was dark, the railroad crossing was whoEy without guards, and there were no lights in the near vicinity. There was abundance of evidence that the nearest car of the train was without light or guard, and that no signal or notice of its approach was given; and that appellant, and another in the automobile with him, looked and Estened as they approached the crossing, but did not see or hear the approaching train. It seems that both train and automobüe were moving slowly, and under the evidence it is quite possible that, even if the train might have been seen from the automobüe approaching on the diagonal crossing, it might not have been manifest to those in the automobüe that the train was moving.
The evidence faEs far short of establishing as a matter of law such contributory negEgenee of appeEee as would bar his recovery.
Upon this record the' question whether appeEee, by his negligence, contributed to the occurrence, was for the jury; and its conclusion thereon we are not at Eberty to disturb.
The judgment is affirmed.

Question: Decisions that affect life, liberty, or property must be preceded by adequate notice and an opportunity for a fair hearing. Did the agency give proper notice?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D