What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on attorneys' fees favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

Opinion:
Orin OLSON, Appellant, v. RED WING SHOE COMPANY, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Appellee.
No. 71-1399.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 13, 1972.
Russell M. Spence, Robins, Meshbesher, Singer & Spence, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
James G. Nye, Jr., Nye, Johnson & Bauer, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Orin Olson, was a block layer for Geo. W. Olson Construction Company, a general contractor, employed by the owner-defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Incorporated, to build a warehouse in Red Wing, Minnesota. During the course of construction plaintiff was seriously injured by the collapse of a concrete block wall. Plaintiff sued the owner and the architect of the building. Olson Construction Company could not be sued directly by reason of its exclusive liability under the Minnesota Workmen’s Compensation Act. A special jury verdict was returned finding the wall collapse was due to 100 percent negligence on the part of the general contractor. Thus judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. The trial court refused to set aside the verdict and this appeal followed.
On appeal the plaintiff urges that the trial court refused to instruct the jury that the defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., could be found liable under § 416 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). Both parties agree that Minnesota law governs the action.
The trial judge, the Honorable Philip Neville, in a well reasoned opinion held § 416 of the Restatement not applicable to the facts. Olson v. Kilstofte and Vo-sejpka, Inc., 327 F.Supp. 583 (D.Minn. 1971). We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in its opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
. Section 416 reads :
“One wlio employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize ns likely to create during its progress a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care to take sucli precautions, even though the employer has provided for sucli precautions in the contract or otherwise.”

Question: Did the court's ruling on attorneys' fees favor the appellant?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3