Task: songer_majvotes

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the number of judges who voted in favor of the disposition favored by the majority. Judges who concurred in the outcome but wrote a separate concurring opinion are counted as part of the majority. For most cases this variable takes the value "2" or "3." However, for cases decided en banc the value may be as high as 15. Note: in the typical case, a list of the judges who heard the case is printed immediately before the opinion. If there is no indication that any of the judges dissented and no indication that one or more of the judges did not participate in the final decision, then all of the judges listed as participating in the decision are assumed to have cast votes with the majority. The number of majority votes recorded includes district judges or other judges sitting by designation who participated on the appeals court panel. If there is an indication that a judge heard argument in the case but did not participate in the final opinion (e.g., the judge died before the decision was reached), that judge is not counted in the number of majority votes.

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: What is the number of judges who voted in favor of the disposition favored by the majority?
A. 0
B. 1
C. 2
D. 3
E. 4
F. 5
G. 6
H. 7
I. 8
J. 9
K. 10
L. 11
M. 12
N. 13
O. 14
P. 15
Q. Not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D