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.
Plaintiff-appellant’s decedent met his death while doing construction work on defendant-appellee’s premises as the employee of a third party. Said third party had under agreement with the defendantappellee undertaken the installation of a major pipeline on which plaintiff-appellant’s decedent was working as a welder when the fatal accident occurred.
At trial the District Judge sustained a motion for a directed verdict in its favor made by defendant-appellee at the close of plaintiff-appellant’s case on the ground that as a matter of law no cause of action against the defendant-appellee had been established, and judgment for the defendant-appellee was entered. On this appeal from that judgment it is determined that the District Judge did not err in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict and the judgment is affirmed.
It will be observed that plaintiff-appellant has in effect had two opportunities to attempt to establish liability on the part of this defendant-appellee, an earlier judgment in its favor on its motion for summary judgment having been vacated and the cause remanded. Rogers v. Peabody Coal Company, 342 F.2d 749 (6th Cir. 1965).

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

Answer: A