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:
Francisco Torres RAMOS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BEAUREGARD, INC., et al., Defendants, Appellees. Francisco Torres RAMOS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. S. S. DETROIT, Defendant, Appellee.
Nos. 7262, 7526.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard Feb. 2, 1970.
Decided April 7, 1970.
Gustavo A. Gelpi, San Juan, P. R., with whom Harvey B. Nachman and Nachman, Feldstein, Laffitte & Smith, San Juan, P. R., were on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rafael O. Fernandez, San Juan, P. R.,. with whom Hartzell, Fernandez, Novas & Ydrach, San Juan, P. R., was on brief, for defendants-appellees.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
COFFIN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was injured while working as a longshoreman aboard the SS Detroit, a vessel owned by appellee Beauregard, Inc. and operated by appellant’s employer, Sea-Land Services, Inc. under a demise charter. He sought recovery from both Beauregard and Sea-Land, alleging that his injuries were caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel. Sea-Land moved for summary judgment on the grounds that workmen’s compensation was the exclusive remedy of a Puerto Rican worker against his own employer. Beauregard also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the shipowner was not liable for conditions arising after a demise charter. Both motions were granted. Appellant then filed a libel in rem against the SS Detroit. This libel was subsequently dismissed because of the lack of any in personam claim to support a lien against the vessel.
In this court, appellant apparently concedes the correctness of summary-judgment for his employer, Sea-Land. Fonseca v. Prann, 282 F.2d 153 (1st Cir. 1960), cert. denied 365 U.S. 860, 81 S.Ct. 826, 5 L.Ed.2d 822 (1961); Alcoa Steamship Co. v. Perez Rodriguez, 376 F.2d 35 (1st Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 905, 88 S.Ct. 215, 19 L.Ed.2d 219 (1967). He protests, however, the dismissals of his libel in personam and his libel in rem. Recognizing that the rulings of the district court were amply supported by precedent, he urges us, however, to reexamine our holding in Vitozi v. Balboa Steamship Co., 163 F.2d 286 (1st Cir., 1947) and Ruiz Pichirilo v. Maysonet Guzman, 290 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1961), rev’d on other grounds, 369 U.S. 698, 82 S.Ct. 1095, 8 L.Ed.2d 205 (1962) that a shipowner is not liable for unseaworthy conditions arising after he has parted with control over his vessel under a demise charter. Appellant also urges us to overturn the rule in this Circuit that no lien against a vessel arises in the absence of an in personam claim. Ruiz Pichirilo v. Maysonet Guzman, supra; Alcoa Steamship Co. v. Perez Rodriguez, supra. We decline appellant’s invitation.
One who seeks to overcome the principle of stare decisis should be prepared to offer compelling reasons which outweigh the public interest in the stability of legal doctrine. Appellant’s reasons are not of that gravity. The Supreme Court has expressly reserved decision on both of the doctrines which appellant attacks. Reed v. S.S. Yaka, 373 U.S. 410, 411 n. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448 (1963). It is of course true, as appellant argues, that a shipowner’s duty to provide a seaworthy vessel cannot be delegated or avoided by contract. Thus a shipowner cannot escape liability by delegating partial control of his vessel to an independent contractor. Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson, 347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798 (1954). But the duty to provide a seaworthy vessel is grounded in personal obligation. We would reduce this notion of personal obligation to pure fiction if we extended it to include conditions arising during a demise charter, when the owner has no right to control and no opportunity to correct defects. Ruiz Pichirilo v. Maysonet Guzman, supra, 290 F.2d at 815; See Cannella v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., 174 F.2d 794, 795 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 859, 70 S.Ct. 102, 94 L.Ed. 526 (1949); Grillea v. United States, 229 F.2d 687, 689 (2d Cir. 1956).
When neither the owner nor the demise charterer is personally liable for unseaworthiness, we see no basis for permitting a libel in rem, against the vessel. Such a proceeding is “merely a procedural device of admiralty for more readily effectuating the liability of some jural person who has breached some personal obligation, * * * ” Reed v. Steamship Yaka, 307 F.2d 203, 205 (3d Cir. 1962), rev’d on other grounds, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448 (1963). Thus there can be no in rem liability absent in personam liability. We are aware of the contrary ruling in Grillea v. United States, 232 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1956), but we find that rule no more persuasive now than we did in Ruiz Pichirilo, supra, 290 F.2d at 815. In Grillea, Judge Learned Hand seemed to view the device of a libel in rem as a means of imposing a limited liability without fault on an otherwise immune shipowner. 232 F.2d at 924. However, liability without fault in ordinary legal parlance means liability without negligence, not liability without breach of a personal obligation owed the injured party. Cf. Skovgaard v. M/V Tungus, 252 F.2d 14, 17 (3d Cir. 1957), aff’d, 358 U.S. 588, 79 S.Ct. 503, 3 L.Ed.2d 524 (1959); Compania Trasatlantica Espanola, S.A. v. Melendez Torres, 358 F.2d 209, 213 (1st Cir. 1966); Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc., 412 F.2d 1011, 1026-1029 (5th Cir. 1969). In this case, where the shipowner has breached no duty owed the injured party, he should be free of all liability, whether limited or unlimited.
Appellant also urges that the shipowner should be liable under the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A. § 5141. His reasoning is based on the “saving to suitors” clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, which permits litigants with maritime claims to seek whatever remedies are provided by common law. Under Puerto Rican law, a prime contractor can be sued for the negligence of an independent contractor in conducting work which is inherently dangerous. Barrientos v. Government of the Capitol (P.R.Sup.Ct., June 27, 1969); see Prosser, Torts § 70, p. 483 (3d ed. 1964). Therefore, appellant concludes, he should be able to sue the shipowner for faults committed by the charterer. We doubt whether the doctrine announced in Barrientos has any application to this case; a shipowner who parts with his vessel under a demise charter is more nearly analogous to a lessor than to a principal contractor. Moreover, appellant misconceives the meaning of the “saving to suitors” clause. Section 1333 is remedial. It provides that suitors who hold claims which may be enforced by a libel in personam may also bring suit in a common law court. Black & Gilmore, The Law of Admiralty § 1-13. If, however, the claim fails under the law of admiralty, it cannot be revived by invoking local law. Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., 247 U.S. 372, 384, 38 S.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171 (1918); Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 407, 408-411, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953); Jansson v. Swedish American Line, 185 F.2d 212, 216-217 (1st Cir. 1950).
We have considered appellant’s constitutional claims, and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.

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: 0