Task: songer_realresp

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.
Your task is to determine whether or not the formally listed respondents in the case are the "real parties." That is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake? (e.g., in some appeals of adverse habeas corpus petition decisions, the respondent is listed as the judge who denied the petition, but the real parties are the prisoner and the warden of the prison) (another example would be "Jones v A 1990 Rolls Royce" where Jones is a drug agent trying to seize a car which was transporting drugs - the real party would be the owner of the car). For cases in which an independent regulatory agency is the listed respondent, the following rule was adopted: If the agency initiated the action to enforce a federal rule or the agency was sued by a litigant contesting an agency action, then the agency was coded as a real party. However, if the agency initially only acted as a forum to settle a dispute between two other litigants, and the agency is only listed as a party because its ruling in that dispute is at issue, then the agency is considered not to be a real party. For example, if a union files an unfair labor practices charge against a corporation, the NLRB hears the dispute and rules for the union, and then the NLRB petitions the court of appeals for enforcement of its ruling in an appeal entitled "NLRB v Widget Manufacturing, INC." the NLRB would be coded as not a real party. Note that under these definitions, trustees are usually "real parties" and parents suing on behalf of their children and a spouse suing on behalf of their injured or dead spouse are also "real parties."

PER CURIAM.
Marco Anthony Mastrandrea, for whose death the administratrix of his estate seeks damages, was for many years a crossing watchman for the defendant railroad company. While in the performance of his duties as watchman at a main line crossing in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, he was struck by the side of the locomotive of a rapidly moving freight train and received injuries which caused his death almost immediately. The crossing was frequently traversed by trains engaged in interstate commerce, as was the train whose locomotive struck him.
In order to save from harm several children of tender years, whose actions gave indication of their intent to enter upon the crossing forthwith, Mastrandrea placed himself in a position of danger, in relation to the oncoming freight train, from which position he was unable to extricate himself in time to avoid being struck. In thus laying himself open to great danger in order to protect others, without thought of his own safety, his conduct was truly heroic.
But the plaintiff’s suit for damages, which, under the circumstances, was necessarily based upon the right of action conferred by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., required proof showing the defendant guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the fatal injuries received by Mastrandrea. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the record in the case is barren of any facts which would justify a jury’s finding that the defendant company, its agents, or servants failed to exercise ordinary care either in the operation of the train whose locomotive inflicted the fatal injuries or in any other particular relating to the accident. We, therefore, have no alternative under the law but to affirm the judgment of the court below, which ruled to like effect.
From the standpoint of a recovery by law for the death of this faithful employee in connection with his employment the case portrays an unfortunate legal situation. As we have seen, no recovery can be had under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, since the plaintiff was unable to prove the defendant negligent. On the other hand, there is no Federal compensation law applicable to the employees of carriers of interstate commerce by rail. And yet, the exclusive applicability of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, precluded a claim by Mastrandrea’s dependents for compensation under the State Compensation Law, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. Such a situation would seem to merit appropriate legislative consideration and correction.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: Are the formally listed respondents in the case the "real parties", that is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake?
A. both 1st and 2nd listed respondents are real parties (or only one respondent, and that respondent is a real party)
B. the 1st respondent is not a real party
C. the 2nd respondent is not a real party
D. neither the 1st nor the 2nd respondents are real parties
E. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A