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.

FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The appellants attack the findings that the scow was seaworthy and that the scow overturned because leakage had accumulated during the loading to a level higher than the keelsons at the stern.
On the question of seaworthiness, the trial judge relied upon the testimony of the expert who indicated that the scow was seaworthy. We must accept this finding. Similarly, we must accept his finding, based on sufficient testimony, that the overturning was caused by the collection of water in the stern until the water-level was higher than the keelsons'.
The fact that she was seaworthy does not mean that the scow could be expected not to leak. The trial court found, from the uncontradicted testimony of appellee’s expert, that all wooden vessels leak, and that the leakage increases when the vessel is loaded. Appellant, experienced in handling scows, was chargeable with notice of some leakage; it was also chargeable with notice that the water running aft might easily rise above the keelsons, where it would be free to run from side to side, causing the scow to list and cargo to shift. Nevertheless, appellant failed to check for leakage or man the pumps.
As there was no captain aboard the scow, appellant had control of the scow and responsibility for its safety. “Upon seeing that the scow had no bargee on board, the dredging company was put to its choice: either to refuse to load her at all, unattended as she was, or to give her such attention as a competent bargee would have given.” F. E. Grauwiller Transportation Company v. Exner Sand & Gravel Corporation, 2 Cir., 162 F.2d 90, 91.
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