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:
UNITED STATES v. WIBYE (two cases).
No. 12537.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 1, 1951.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1951.
Frank J. ITennessy, U. S. Atty., and Rudolph J. Scholz, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Paul B. Richard, John D. Den-Dulk, Frank C. Stark and Stanley E. Sparrowe, Oakland, Cal. (Nichols, Richard, Allard & Williams, Eugene K. Sturgis and John D. Den-Dulk and Stark & Champlin, Oakland, Cal., of counsel), for appellees.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, BIGGS, Chief Judge, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
Sitting in the Ninth Circuit by special designation.
DENMAN, Chief Judge.
These cases were consolidated for argument on appeal, the facts being the same in each. The United States appeals from judgments awarding appellees Niels K. Wibye and Harold K. Wibye damages in the .amount of $60,000 and $45,000 respectively 'for personal injuries incurred by them when the automobile in which they were riding was struck by an army automobile owned by the government and driven -by one Hadley, a war department employee. The two appellees’ separate-suits are under the Federal Tort Claims. Act, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) § 931 (now 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), et seq.
The United States here contends (a) thatHadley’s negligence was not shown, and (b) that this government employee was not. acting within the scope of his employment.
Negligence:
The government argues that appellees have not sustained their burden of proof of Hadley’s negligence. We do not agree. The uncontradicted evidence is that Hadley drove the army automobile westerly on the California three lane highway on State Route 513. The collision with the appellees’ car, driven easterly on that highway, occurred between the California towns of Dublin and Castro Valley. Hadley’s car turned from the right lane across and over the center lane into the appellees’ car, which at all times was in its right hand of the three lanes. Hadley was killed and appellees severely injured.
The government contends that the presumption stated in United States v. Fotopulos, 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 631, applies. We there stated, 180 F.2d at page 637, in sustaining the district court’s finding of negligence, that: “The presumption that a person looks out for his own safety comes to the aid of the plaintiff. * * * This presumption thus rises to the dignity of evidence when * * * because of death, the plaintiff cannot testify. * * * And it is sufficient to support the * * * finding of a court unless overcome by irrefutable evidence.’’
Here the presumption is sought, not to sustain, but to overcome the finding. We think the finding is sustained by .the presumption of negligence arising from the movement of Hadley’s car into his left hand lane causing the collision, under the applicable California statute requiring that a car should be driven in the driver’s right hand lane. Jolley v. Clemens, 28 Cal.App.2d 55, 68, 82 P.2d 51.
Scope of Employment
Hadley, employed by the Quartermasters Corps., was required to visit various army depots in California and thereafter return to Fort Lewis, Washington. He had finished his work at Lathrop, California, on November 8. He chose to drive to Fort Lewis on a route through San Francisco about 60 miles longer than an inland route of 900 miles. Assuming the two routes were travelled through the same elevations, at an average of 40 miles an hour, the inland route would take twenly-two and a half hours while the route via San Francisco would take an hour and a half longer.
However, the routes were not at the same elevation. The maps in evidence show that the inland route rose to 3456 feet at Weed, California, and continued over the Siskiyou mountains 98 miles to Klamath Agency, Oregon, having an elevation of 4107 and a mountainous area in which, in November, delaying snowy weather might be encountered. On the route via San Francisco there are no such elevations. We cannot say that the San Francisco route was a less advantageous route to reach Fort Lewis than through the Siskiyous.
The evidence is that on the San Francisco route Hadley would be able to dine with his mother and had agreed to do so. The government contends this shows that he was, in effect, on a “frolic of his own” and not driving the car for a government purpose. We do not agree. We think the district court properly followed the California rule stated in Ryan v. Farrell, 208 Cal. 200, 280 P. 945, 946: “where the servant is combining his own business with that of his master, or attending to both at substantially the same time, no nice inquiry will be made as to which business the servant was actually engaged in when a third person was injured; but the master will be held responsible, unless it clearly appears that the servant could not have been directly or indirectly serving his master.”
The above rule is quoted and applied by us in Murphey v. United States, 9 Cir., 179 F.2d 743, 746, and United States v. Johnson, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 577, 580. The district court’s finding is sustained and its judgments are 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