Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM:
Defendant was the owner and operator of the SS Occidental Victory. Plaintiff Kirsch was a crewman on the vessel. In 1968 plaintiff was injured on board when he was struck by one Hutchison, a Third Assistant Engineer. This suit for damages was then instituted. The District Court found for plaintiff on the theory that Hutchison’s presence on the ship rendered it unseaworthy. This appeal followed.
Having reviewed the evidence, we conclude that it does not support the finding of unseaworthiness. We reverse.
The general warranty of seaworthiness is that the vessel is “reasonably fit.” The Silvia, 171 U.S. 462, 464, 19 S.Ct. 7, 43 L.Ed. 241 (1898). As applied to a seaman’s temperament and ability, the warranty “is ‘that he is equal in disposition and seamanship to the ordinary men in the calling.’ ” Stechcon v. United States, 439 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1971), citing Keen v. Overseas Tankship Corp., 194 F.2d 515, 518 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 343 U.S. 966, 72 S.Ct. 1061, 96 L.Ed. 1363 (1952). The questions are whether the behavior was “within the usual and customary standards of the calling,” or whether it was “a case of a seaman with a wicked disposition, a propensity to evil conduct, a savage and vicious nature.” Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 348 U.S. 336, 340, 75 S.Ct. 382, 385, 99 L.Ed. 354 (1955). If his temperament is the latter, then the ship becomes a “perilous place.” Id. It is always an issue of degree. A seaman’s shipboard conduct is not measured by the same standard as the conduct of ordinary men ashore. See Boorus v. West Coast Trans-Oceanic S. S. Line, 299 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1962).
The altercation in this case arose when Kirsch, who was the chief steward, allegedly failed to have Hutchison’s bed made up. Kirsch and Hutchison had a meeting regarding the matter. Hutchi-son lost his temper during the meeting and struck Kirsch twice with his fists. Kirsch fell over the raised threshold of the entranceway into the meeting room. The fight was pursued no further, and Kirsch was able to work the rest of the voyage. At no time during the argument did Kirsch try to strike Hutchison. The District Court found Hutchison’s action was without cause or justification.
The record shows that Hutchison had been in three previous fist fights during his thirty year career, but all three had occurred approximately ten years before the Kirsch incident. He was involved in one further fight subsequent to the Kirsch altercation. The evidence is that none of the fights involved more than the use of hands. Each was short lived. There is no evidence of brutality or viciousness. The District Court, having listened to all the evidence, concluded “there is no question in my mind but that Bill Hutchinson [sic] is a good man. He is a good person; he is a good engineer; he has good character.”
We are unable to concur with the District Court that the circumstances of the five fights in Hutchison’s career, in light of all the evidence, indicate a “savage” or “vicious” nature or make the ship he is aboard a “perilous place.” Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., supra,. The conclusion that Hutchison’s actions made the vessel Occidental Victory unseaworthy must be and is hereby reversed.
Upon remand, the District Court will enter its judgment in favor of the defendant, the appellant here. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A