Task: songer_respond2_1_2

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 second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

PER CURIAM.
This appeal from a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in an action brought by the administratrix of a deceased brakeman, who was killed while riding on an engine of the appellee railroad company as the result of a collision with a tractor-trailer at a grade crossing, has .been duly considered upon the record and upon the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys. The record fails to reveal any substantial evidence of proximate negligence on the part of the railroad company and there was, therefore, no substantial evidence on which the case should have been submitted to the jury upon the issue of negligence.
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district judge in refusing to permit appellant to file a second amended petition. We find, moreover, that the failure of the railroad company to equip the locomotive in question with a pilot had no remote connection with the accident resulting in the death of appellant’s intestate. The railroad engine was demolished and numerous cars telescoped and piled up as the result of the collision. The equipment of the locomotive with a pilot could in no aspect have contributed to the prevention of the accident which resulted in the death of appellant’s decedent. The doctrine res ipsa loquitur has no applicability to’the facts of this case, for the reason that the tractor-trailer which collided with the locomotive was not under the control of the appellee.
An examination of the record reveals that, in his elaborate opinion, comprising 35 pages of the typewritten record, the experienced district judge made manifest his well grounded reasons for declining to submit the case to the jury and for granting a directed verdict.
In our opinion, his action was correct and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
. Oral opinion.

Question: This question concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?
A. local
B. neither local nor national
C. national or multi-national
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D