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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
NORFOLK & W. RY. CO. v. WHITE.
No. 6124.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 4, 1950.
Decided Oct. 18, 1950.
Joseph M. Sanders, Bluefield, W. Va., (W. W. Coxe, Roanoke, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Arthur Ritz Kingdon, Mullens, W. Va. (Kingdon & Kingdon, Mullens, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, . Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment against a railroad for the killing of an infant by one of its trains at or near a crossing. It is strenuously contended that there was not sufficient evidence to take the casé to the jury; but we think that it is sufficient under the rule that, for this purpose, it must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. As the case is to be tried again, it is not desirable to discuss the evidence in detail.
We think, however, that there was error in permitting the jury to consider the case under the theory that the infant may have been killed, not as a result of being struck by the train, but as the result of the train’s not being stopped thereafter as promptly as possible. The testimony is that the child was struck by the train and thrown forward and that the train passed over it. There is no substantial evidence from which the conclusion can legitimately be drawn that any subsequent slowing up or stopping of the train could have avoided the fatal injury and the jury should not have been invited to enter into any such field of speculation. Defendant’s exception to the charge relating to this aspect of the case must accordingly be sustained.
The judgment appealed from will be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Reversed.
Circuit Judge SO PER concurs in the view that there was no substantial evidence that the fatal injury was caused by any failure on the part of the Railway Company after the child was struck by the train; but he is of the further opinion that there was no substantial evidence to justify the submission of the case to the jury.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 4