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:
NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. ANDERSON’S-BLACK ROCK, INC., Appellee.
No. 9869.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 5, 1965.
Decided Sept. 17, 1965.
Zane Grey Staker, Williamson, W. Va. (W. Graham Smith, Jr., and Slaven & Staker, Williamson, W. Va., on brief), for appellant.
Edwin W. Conley, Huntington, W. Va. (Huddleston & Bolen, Huntington, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.
OREN R. LEWIS, District Judge:
The original plaintiff, Franklin D. R. Halstead, an employee of Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc., received $20,000.00 from the Norfolk and Western Railway Company after instituting a tort action in which he alleged that he lost an arm by reason of Norfolk and Western’s simple negligence in that: one, Norfolk and Western altered a gondola by welding some braces or angle irons on the inside walls; two, Norfolk and Western allowed that car to be loaded with limestone to a height concealing the angle iron; and three, Norfolk and Western did not warn him of the presence of the hidden angle irons; so that as he was assisting in unloading that car, his accident occurred. Norfolk and Western’s answer admitted the allegations but denied negligence. A co-defendant, John W. Lowe, was dismissed from the case on motion of the plaintiff.
By third-party action against Black Rock Norfolk and Western seeks reimbursement of the $20,000.00 paid Hal-stead via indemnity.
The contract relied upon by Norfolk and Western consisted of a standard form of bill of lading and certain tariff rules and regulations applicable thereto, all on file and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission and contained in Uniform Freight Classification 5 — specifically, Rule Number 27, Section 1 — which reads as follows:
“Owners are required to load into or on cars, freight for forwarding by rail carriers, and to unload from cars freight received by rail carriers, carried at CL ratings or rates, except where tariff of carrier at point of origin or destination or stopover station (as the case may be) provides for loading or unloading of CL freight by carrier.”
Black Rock in its answer admitted its employees, including Halstead, unloaded the car and that Halstead was injured while so doing, but denied liability to Norfolk and Western by reason of any matter concerned with the accident, and further, pleaded as affirmative defenses that: (one) the third-party complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and (two) that it was shielded from liability to the Railway Company by virtue of the exclusive liability provisions of the West Virginia Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Black Rock in its motion for summary judgment admitted that its negligence in unloading the car was a proximate cause of Halstead’s injury. There being no factual differences, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the third-party complaint.
Norfolk and Western seeks reversal upon the ground it was deprived of a trial on the merits. Had it been granted a trial, the Railway says, it would have adduced evidence that Black Rock negligently unloaded the limestone with their clamshell shovel and would have put in evidence the bill of lading under which the shipment moved.
This argument is without merit. Black Rock in its motion for summary judgment admitted that its negligence in unloading the car was a proximate cause of Halstead’s injuries, and the introduction of the bill of lading would not have added anything to the record. It could only have shown that the shipment of limestone was moved subject to the tariffs in effect and regulations applicable thereto, namely, Rule Number 27, Section 1. This was disclosed by the Railway in its answer to interrogatories.
There being no genuine issue as to any material fact, summary judgment was the proper vehicle for the determinaton of this case. Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The legal question before the District Court for determination was whether Black Rock had a contract of indemnity with Norfolk and Western which would allow Norfolk and Western to recover from or be indemnified by Black Rock for the $20,000.00 paid Hal-stead. The District Court found adversely to the Railway, and we agree.
Norfolk and Western claims Black Rock breached its implied contractual duty to the Railway to unload the car of limestone in a safe and non-negligent manner. To establish such a duty the Railway relies upon the terms of the bill of lading and the Interstate Commerce Commission tariff regulations applicable thereto, specifically including Uniform Freight Classification 5, Rule Number 27, Section 1. We do not so read the tariff. Black Rock was in no sense performing a service for Norfolk and Western when it unloaded its limestone from the defective car. It was merely unloading its own property uninhibited in manner or means by any conditions imposed by Norfolk and Western. There was no duty on the part of the Railway, by custom or tariff, to unload carload freight from its cars when they arrived at the point of destination. To the contrary, the tariff here relied upon expressly requires the owners to both load and unload carload shipments.
The facts in the Moretz case, relied upon by Norfolk and Western to support its theory of an implied contract of indemnity, are sufficiently different from the facts in this case to readily distinguish that case from this one. There the applicable tariff imposed specific duties in re loading on the carrier of the cargo. Here no such duties were imposed. There the shipper was seeking indemnity from the carrier for losses incurred from the improper loading of the truck. Here the carrier is seeking indemnity from the shipper for losses sustained by reason of its admitted negligence. There the carrier was contractually engaged in the performance of a service for the shipper when the injury occurred, under the terms of which engagement the carrier was required to observe certain safety measures which it clearly violated, resulting in the loss to the shipper, while here Black Rock was not engaged to perform any service for Norfolk and Western and was performing none at the time of the injury.
As was pointed out by this Court in the Moretz case, if in the process of performing its contract of service a carrier causes the shipper to incur a loss then the essence of the contract is an indemnity obligation of the carrier to make the shipper whole.
There being no contract of indemnity in the instant case, discussion of the other asserted defenses is not required.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. In settlement without prejudice to the rights of Norfolk and Western in the third-party action.
. Halstead received benefits from the West Virginia workmen’s compensation funds for injuries sustained while unloading the car.
. The Railway, for reasons best known to itself, did not undertake to have the bill of lading made a part of the' record in the District Court.
. See 13 Am.Jur.2d, Carriers, Section 319, p. 814.
. General Electric Company v. Moretz, 270 F.2d 780 (4th Cir. 1959).

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