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.

RITTER, District Judge.
These actions arose out of a railroad crossing collision between appellee’s (herein referred to as defendant) train and a truck in which the husbands of the three appellants (herein referred to as plaintiffs) were passengers. The collision occurred at the crossing of defendant’s railroad track and the main street of Haviland, Kansas, a town of some six hundred inhabitants.
Plaintiffs’ claims were predicated on the alleged negligence of the railroad in operating its train at the speed of seventy-five miles per hour, in permitting structures to be built on the railroad’s right of way, which blocked the view of the oncoming train, and in maintaining faulty and inadequate signal devices at the crossing. The defendants denied negligence and alleged the contributory negligence of the deceased husbands as a defense.
The District Court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and the question on appeal is whether plaintiffs were entitled to have their case go to the jury.
The plaintiffs’ own evidence shows that, the three plaintiffs’ husbands, sitting in. the back seat of the truck, were talking to and facing their work supervisor, who. was sitting next to the driver, until the moment of the accident, and that they made no effort to look for approaching trains, when vigilance on their part could; have prevented the accident.
Under Kansas law a passenger in a vehicle is under a duty to look out for trains at railroad crossings. The Kansas Supreme Court in a recent decision noted that the test of contributory negligence for a passenger in Kansas “has. varied somewhat over the years.” However, it quoted the tests stated in two cases with approval. One of the cases so cited states the following to be the duty of a passenger: “ * * * it was his duty to look for approaching trains and warn the driver thereof. Failure to do these things would constitute contributory negligence on his part * * * ” Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 196 F.2d 333, 335 (10th Cir. 1952) quoted in Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 182 Kan. 249, 320 P.2d 1061 (1958); accord Kessler v. Davis, 111 Kan. 515, 207 P. 799 (1922); Richards v. Chicago Railroad, Inc., 157 Kan. 378, 139 P.2d 427 (1943).
It is unnecessary to consider any of the remaining questions in the case. As a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ conduct does not discharge the duty of care required of a passenger for his own protection.
Judgment affirmed.

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

Answer: A