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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
MASSACHUSETTS PROTECTIVE ASS’N, Inc., v. BAYERSDORFER.
No. 7881.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 28, 1939.
Bailey Aldrich, of Boston, Mass. (Garfield, Cross, Daoust, Baldwin & Vrooman, A. D. Baldwin, and Leslie R. Ulrich, all of Cleveland, Ohio, and F. H. Nash, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
John E. Irvine, of Steubenville, Ohio (Smith, Francis & Irvine, Carl H. Smith, all of Steubenville, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HICKS, HAMILTON, and ARANT, Circuit Judges.
HICKS, Circuit Judge.
Appellee, a resident of Steubenville, Ohio, sued appellant upon a policy of accident insurance issued by it upon the life of her husband, Stanley W. Bayersdorfer. Clause G provided in part, “This policy does not cover death * * * sustained as the result of participation in aviation, aeronautics or subaquatics. * * * ”
The facts were either stipulated or unchallenged. Bayersdorfer was a merchant at Steubenville. On April 7, 1936, he embarked at Camden, N. J., as a fare-paying passenger, on an airliner operated by Transcontinental and Western Air Lines, Inc. Its destination was Pittsburgh. Flying through a dense fog, the plane crashed and Bayersdorfer was killed. The policy was issued August 15, 1933.
The court heard the case without a jury and, rejecting appellant’s defense that the deceased’s death resulted from “participation in aviation” or “aeronautics,” entered a judgment in favor of appellee.
The appeal presents the question: Whether the quoted portion of Clause G absolved appellant from liability. There are no Ohio decisions interpreting a like clause. This court has twice had before it appeals involving insurance company liability for death resulting from aeroplane accident. In First Natl. Bank of Chattanooga v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 62 F.2d 681, 682, it held that one who owned a plane, employed a pilot to operate it, and determined whether weather conditions warranted flight and the time for flight, was “participating in aeronautic operations,” even though he did not actually pilot the plane. In Mayer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 74 F.2d 118, 99 A.L.R. 155, it decided that the beneficiaries of the insurance of a fare-paying passenger, killed in an aeroplane accident, could not recover double indemnity under a policy providing that the double indemnity provisions did not apply to deaths resulting from engagement “as a passenger or otherwise, in * * * aeronautic operations.” Neither decision is controlling here. Bayersdorfer had no voice in the operation of the plane as in the first case; and there was no claus.e in the instant policy, denying recovery to passengers, as in the Mayer case.
Deceased was a merchant. No contention is made that he had any voice in the operation of the plane. He simply bought passage on a commercial transport plane, operated by a company in the business of air transportation. Did he under these circumstances participate in aviation or aeronautics ?
The meaning of the word “participation” has not varied appreciably in thirty years. In the Oxford Dictionary, Edition of 1909, it is defined as “1. The action or fact of partaking, having or forming part of. * * * 2. The fact or condition of sharing in common (with others; or with each other) * * * (b) A taking part, association or sharing (with others) in some action or matter.” In the Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary, 1938 Edition, it is defined as “1. The act or state of sharing in common with others; a receiving or having part of something; a partaking. * * * ” In Webster’s New International Dictionary, 1932 Edition, it is defined as “1. Act or state of participating or sharing in common with others; * * * act or state of partaking or forming a part of.” The New Century Dictionary, 1927 Edition, has it “ * * * a taking part, as in some action or attempt.”
The phrasing of the definitions differs slightly, but so far as we can judge, the concept is the same in all four dictionaries.
What acts, action, activity or attempt is it that insured must not take part in, share in common, or participate in, with others ? What is the “aviation” and “aeronautics” he is forbidden to participate in?
In 1909, the word “aviation” did not appear in the Oxford Dictionary. It defined “aeronautics” as “The science, art or practice of sailing in the air; aerial navigation.” The 1938 Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary defined aviation as “The art of flying; especially the management of aeroplanes.” Aeronautics was . “The branch of aerostatics which treats of floating in or navigating the air as in an airship or aeroplane. 2. The art or practice of sailing or floating in the air, * * The New Century Dictionary, 1927, defined aviation as “The act, art or science of flying by mechanical means, esp. with machines heavier than air; navigation of the air with flying machines or aeroplanes”; and aeronautics as “The science or art of aerial navigation.” Webster, 1932, defined the terms as follows: Aviation, “The art or science of locomotion by means of aeroplanes”; and aeronautics, “The science and art of seif sustained flight in air, as by means of a balloon; aerial navigation; ballooning.”
These definitions disclose that both “aviation” and “aeronautics” are highly technical subjects in the realm of art and science, and were so when the policy was written. The 1927 Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary defined both subjects in the same terms, used in the 1938 edition. There is hardly any basis for ambiguity. Bayersdorfer was a merchant, — a passenger. As such he placed himself in the hands of those who were versed and practiced in the science and art of aviation and aeronautics. He did not share in common with them in the management or navigation of the plane. He incurred, perforce, the incidental hazards, but the policy was to protect him against hazards and if this particular one was intended to be excepted, more explicit language could have been used.
Even if the language be considered ambiguous, we should arrive at the same conclusion, on the principle of construction, that it should be interpreted most favorably to the insured. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hurni Co., 263 U.S. 167, 174, 44 S.Ct. 90, 68 L.Ed. 235, 31 A.L.R. 102.
Clause G has been considered by other courts. In Sneddon v. Mass. Protec. Ass’n, Inc., 39 N.Mex. 74, 39 P.2d 1023, the insured was killed while riding as an invited passenger in a privately owned plane. The court held that he was participating in aviation or aeronautics within the exception but the circumstances ■ were such that the case bears little analogy to Bayersdorfer’s situation.
In Bew v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 95 N.J.L. 533, 112 A. 859, 14 A.L.R. 983, the policy excluded death resulting from “participating in * * * aeronautics.” The court held that a passenger was thus participating in aeronautics, reasoning that one who was not steering a toboggan but riding thereon was nevertheless participating m the sport; and that one riding in the back seat of a car was participating in automobiling. See also Travelers’ Ins. Co. v. Peake, 82 Fla. 128, 89 So. 418; Meredith v. Business Men’s Acc. Ass’n, 213 Mo.App. 688, 252 S.W. 976; and Head v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 43 F.2d 517.
But in Gregory v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 8 Cir., 78 F.2d 522, 524, the court held that “ ‘participation in aeronautics’ * * * do not * * * include a passenger on a transport airplane.” To the same effect is Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass’n v. Moyer, 9 Cir., 94 F.2d 906; Marks v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 9 Cir., 96 F.2d 267; and Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass’n v. Bowman, 8 Cir., 99 F.2d 856. The Bew and Peake cases were decided in 1921, the Meredith case in 1923, and the Plead case in 1930. But -the cases upholding appellee’s contention have all been decided since 1935.
We think that the later cases reflect a changing attitude toward aviation, due no doubt to the marvelous progress made in the art of flying. In the early days each flight was a venture. The pilot and passenger, if he had one, flew tandem, or side by side, in an open cockpit over unknown terrain, to make-shift landing fields. Today transport flying is a business. The air lines have modern landing fields and passenger stations, and their established scheduled routes are protected by radio beams, beacons, weather reports, etc. They compete with each other for patronage and people in increasing numbers are using their services as a matter of course. Their passengers no more participate in the operation of their planes than do passengers upon a railroad train participate in operating the train or those upon an ocean liner participate in navigating the ship. They pay their fares and passively accept the services and accommodations offered. The pilot is employed because of his skill and efficiency. The passenger is not permitted to direct or control him as to how, where or when he shall fly. Any sensible passenger would not presume to do so. If it was ever true, it cannot now be said that a fare-paying passenger on a. commercial air liner “participates in aviation or aeronautics.” Words, after all, are but labels whose content and meaning are continually shifting with the times. Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425, 38 S.Ct. 158, 62 L.Ed. 372, L.R.A.1918D, 254.
The judgment is affirmed.
Webster, 1936, defined aviation as “The art or practice of operating heavier-than-air aircraft.'

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1