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 "fiduciaries". 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:
Joseph L. KANALEY, an Infant over Fourteen Years of age, by Leola P. Kanaley, his duly appointed Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17, Docket 25430.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 15, 1959.
Decided Nov. 12, 1959.
Gordon H. Mahley, Syracuse, N. Y. (H. O. Beach, Oswego, N. Y., Rice & Auser, Fulton, N. Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Raymond Hackbarth, Syracuse, N. Y. (Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, Syracuse, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and SMITH, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, an infant over the age of fourteen years, by his guardian appeals from a judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case for failure to prove negligence and failure to prove plaintiff free from contributory-negligence. The action originally commenced in the Supreme Court for Oswego County (New York) was removed to the federal court (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1332, 1441).
There is virtually no dispute as to the material facts. On April 6, 1957, plaintiff, with two friends, was walking along a public highway in the City of Fulton, New York. A freight train, operated by defendant, was slowly crossing the street. One of plaintiff’s friends jumped on one of the cars; plaintiff jumped on a ladder on the car directly behind. Plaintiff was holding a basketball under his right arm. As the car passed the freight house, plaintiff came into contact with the building causing him to jump to a ledge on the side of the building. Still holding the basketball, he attempted to leap again onto the ear but fell to the tracks where the wheels ran over his right arm necessitating amputation.
Under the law of New York (applicable here) plaintiff was a trespasser to whom defendant would be liable only for wanton and reckless conduct or, as sometimes phrased, an affirmative act of negligence. This rule has been consistently adhered to by the New York courts, the exception being situations in which the defendants were guilty of some affirmative act of negligence, such as, threatening gestures causing children to jump from moving trains or permitting deceptive traps (e. g., a flimsy wooden cover over a deep hole) to present an appearance of solid support.
In a most recent decision, Lo Casto v. Long Is. R. Co., 6 N.Y.2d 470, 190 N.Y.S.2d 366, 160 N.E.2d 846, July 8, 1959, the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed the law applicable here, saying: “The controlling law was restated in Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 296 N.Y. 154, 158, 71 N.E.2d 447, 449, as follows: ‘ “Toward mere trespassers or bare licensees the rule is well settled that the only duty owing to them by the owner or oecupier of land is to abstain from inflicting intentional, wanton or willful injuries unless he maintains some hidden engine of destruction” ’. The Carbone opinion cites many other holdings and the existence of the rule is not really disputed” (6 N.Y.2d at page 474, 190 N.Y.S.2d at page 369, 160 N.E.2d at page 848.
Accepting all the facts established here by plaintiff, the trial court correctly determined that they were insufficient to establish a cause of action in plaintiff’s favor. This decision is in conformity with New York law, well summarized in Gloshinsky v. Bergen Milk Transportation Co., 1938, 279 N.Y. 54, at page 59, 17 N.E.2d 766, at page 768: “There are no conflicting inferences to be drawn from the testimony. But a single determination is possible from the facts and that is that the boy exercised no care at all for his own safety, and under those circumstances, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to sustain the burden resting upon them to show that he was free from negligence contributing to his injuries,” citing Wendell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 1883, 91 N.Y. 420, and Camarado v. New York State Railways, 1928, 247 N.Y. 111, 159 N.E. 879.
The judgment is affirmed.
. Lo Casto v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 1959, 6 N.Y.2d 470, 190 N.Y.S.2d 366, 160 N.E. 2d 846; Van Houten v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 1956, 2 N.Y.2d 739, 157 N.Y.S.2d 376, 138 N.E.2d 737; Van Houten v. Long Island Railroad Co., 2nd Dept. 1952, 279 App.Div. 1099, 112 N.Y.S.2d 678; Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 1946, 296 N.Y. 154, 71 N.E.2d 447; Ralff v. Long Island Railroad Co., 2nd Dept. 1943, 266 App.Div. 794, 41 N.Y.S.2d 620, affirmed 1944, 292 N.Y. 656, 55 N.E.2d 518; Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp., 1939, 280 N.Y. 110, 19 N.E.2d 981; Walsh v. Fitchburg R. Co., 1895, 145 N.Y. 301, 39 N.E. 1068, 27 L.R.A. 724.
. Clark v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 1889, 113 N.Y. 670, 21 N.E. 1116; McCann v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 1889, 117 N.Y. 505, 23 N.E. 164; Ansteth v. Buffalo Railway Co., 1895, 145 N.Y. 210, 39 N.E. 708.
. Le Roux v. State, 1954, 307 N.Y. 397, 121 N.E.2d 386, 46 A.L.R.2d 1063; Mayer v. Temple Properties, 1954, 307 N.Y. 559, 122 N.E.2d 909.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1