Task: songer_appel1_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 first listed appellant. 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.
Miriam Nellis, a citizen of Connecticut, filed a complaint in the court below against Fredleys, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, seeking damages in the sum of $5,000 upon allegations that on March 12, 1947, while plaintiff, as a business invitee, was in the defendant’s Boston store, the plaintiff’s mink coat was stolen through the neglect and carelessness of the defendant, its agents of servants, in that the defendant utterly and negligently failed to provide such security and protection of the plaintiff’s property as it was legally bound to do. Defendant’s answer was a denial, and a plea of contributory negligence. At the close of:the evidence,'defendant moved for a directed verdict. The court reserved decision on the motion, and submitted to the jury the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and amount of damages, in a charge to which no exception has been taken; A verdict for plaintiff was returned in the sum of $3,500, upon which the court entered judgment. Defendant moved that the verdict and judgment be set aside and that judgment be entered for the defendant in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict. This motion the court denied.
On appeal, the only question raised is as to the correctness of the trial judge’s rulings on the above motions by the defendant. A study of the record leaves us with the impression that the plaintiff's cáse was rather weak, but we are not convinced that the case is one in which the issues of negligence and contributory negligence should have been withdrawn from the jury.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. 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: A