Task: songer_respond1_1_3

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 respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff entered upon a jury’s verdict in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by the defendant’s negligence. The defendant moved the trial court for judgment n.o.v. on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and, in the alternative, for a new trial. Both of those motions were denied. It is only the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment n.o.v., however, which the appellant any longer urges as error.
Our examination of the record persuades us that under the weather conditions, obtaining at the time and place of the accident, which impeded both sight and hearing, and the positive testimony that the plaintiff had stopped, looked and listened at an appropriate place before entering upon the crossing of the defendant company’s track, made the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence a matter for the jury’s determination. Under the circumstances shown, it could not be said on the basis of any legal standard of care that the plaintiff must have or should have seen or heard the train that struck him, in time to avoid the accident.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?
A. agriculture
B. mining
C. construction
D. manufacturing
E. transportation
F. trade
G. financial institution
H. utilities
I. other
J. unclear
Answer:

Answer: E