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:
Theodore BENAZET, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIE LACKAWANNA RAILROAD COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 474, 475, Dockets 35278, 35279.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 16, 1971.
Decided April 23, 1971.
Joseph P. Altier, New York City (Bromsen & Gammerman, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appel-lee.
Devereux Milburn, New York City (Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, Frank G. Kurka, James J. Mennis and Jerome L. Getz, New York City, on the brief), for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, defendant and third party plaintiff-appellant.
Lloyd W. Roberson, New York City, for Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company, third party defendant-appellee.
Before SMITH and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and TIMBERS, District Judge.
Chief Judge of the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
TIMBERS, District Judge:
Appellant Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company (Atlantic) appeals from, a $200,000 judgment entered against it after a four day jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Irving Ben Cooper, District Judge, and from an order entered by Judge Cooper after trial dismissing Atlantic’s third party complaint against the Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company (Erie). 315 F.Supp. 357 (S.D.N.Y.1970).
The accident occurred July 30, 1964. Plaintiff was employed as a yard brakeman by Erie. He sustained injuries while working on a box car owned by Atlantic. The box ear was being moved from the shore near Jersey City, New Jersey, over a float bridge and on to a carfloat which is a barge with railroad tracks to accommodate railroad cars. The carfloat was owned by Erie. It was moored on the Hudson River which is part of the navigable waters of New York Harbor just off the Jersey shore. Plaintiff fell from the box car to the deck of the carfloat. His fall was caused by a defective handbrake on the box car which he was attempting to tighten while standing on a footboard which had rotted and decayed. When the footboard and handbrake assembly gave way, plaintiff was catapulted to the deck of the carfloat. No issue is raised on this appeal with respect to the defective conditions of the box car owned by Atlantic being the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
Atlantic’s essential claims on appeal are (1) that the case was erroneously submitted to the jury on the issue of contributory negligence; (2) that Atlantic’s asserted right of contribution between joint tort feasors in a non-collision case was erroneously rejected in the dismissal of its third party complaint against Erie; and (3) that the trial judge erroneously refused to set aside the verdict as excessive. Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
We need not tarry long over Atlantic’s claim that the case was erroneously submitted to the jury on the issue of contributory negligence. In the first place, in response to a written interrogatory submitted with the approval of all counsel, including Atlantic’s, the jury expressly found that plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; and our independent examination satisfies us that this finding is adequately supported by the record. Furthermore, Atlantic’s counsel not only did not object to the manner in which the judge submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the jury, but he participated in the formulation of the charge as given on this issue.
What happened was somewhat unusual. At the conclusion of the third day of the trial of an action that had been pending for four years, counsel for Erie submitted- a memorandum of law indicating for the first time that general maritime law governed rather than the common law as all counsel and the judge had supposed up to that point. Confronted with this development at the close of the evidence and on the eve of summations and charge, Judge Cooper resorted to what strikes us as a sensible, practical method of resolving the dilemma: he invited all counsel to confer with him and to participate in the formulation of the charge and written interrogatories to be submitted to the jury, especially on the issue of contributory negligence. They did. There emerged a charge, agreed to by all -counsel, under which the jury was instructed with respect to the applicable rule of contributory negligence under common law (complete bar to recovery) and under general maritime law (comparative negligence). The charge was accompanied by seven, written interrogatories, also agreed to by all counsel, in response to which the jury was instructed to decide (No. 3) whether plaintiff had established “that he exercised due care for his own safety” (which the jury answered in the affirmative); or (No. 5), in the event its answer were in the negative to No. 3, whether defendant had established “that plaintiff was contributorily negligent” and, if so, “what per cent” (which the jury did not answer, having answered No. 3 in the affirmative)
We have no doubt that the trial judge, if given more time to determine whether the common law or general maritime law governed, would have preferred to have submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the jury differently. We are satisfied, however, under the circumstances that essential justice was done. And certainly Atlantic is foreclosed from claiming error with respect to a charge in which it acquiesced and to which it intex’posed no objection until after the return of a substantial verdict .against it.
II.
Altantic’s third party claim against Erie was based alternatively on indemnity or contribution between joint tort feasors. At trial, in response to the judge’s inquiry before charging the jury, Atlantic’s counsel withdrew its indemnity claim. Such withdrawal was confirmed by Atlantic’s counsel at the time of oral argument before us.
Atlantic however continues vigorously to press its contribution claim before us as it did below. It points to the jury’s answers to written interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7 where the jury found Erie, as well as Atlantic, to have been negligent, and Erie’s negligence to have been a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's injuries. Atlantic’s contribution claim, so far as the equities are concerned, is appealing. But the controlling law is to the contrary.
Plaintiff having been injured aboard a vessel upon navigable waters, clearly general maritime law controls. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale, 358 U.S. 625, 628 (1959); Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 409 (1953). The Supreme Court has expressly held that under general maritime law there is no contribution among joint tort feasors in a non-collision case, noting that “because Congress while acting in the field has stopped short of approving the rule of contribution here urged, we think it would be inappropriate for us to do so.” Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp., 342 U.S. 282, 285-87 (1952).
Atlantic urges a variety of arguments, not without ingenuity, which add up to an invitation to us either to ignore Halcyon or to urge the Supreme Court to overrule it. We decline the invitation and adhere to the view expressed by this Court, through Judge Friendly, in McLaughlin v. Trelleborgs Angfartygs A/B, 408 F.2d 1334, 1338 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 946 (1969):
“So long as Halcyon v. Haenn remains on the books, inferior federal courts will do better to abstain from further adventures in this wonderland and leave doctrinal development to the Supreme Court ft
For substantially the same reasons, we likewise decline Atlantic’s invitation to permit “supplementation” of general maritime law with the New Jersey Joint Tortfeasors Act, N.J.Rev.Stat. § 2A:53A (1952). Aside from the controlling bar of Halcyon to contribution in a non-collision case, we note that it is doubtful that the New Jersey statute is applicable to a third party action against the employer of an injured plaintiff. Farren v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 31 N.J.Super. 356, 106 A.2d 752 (App.Div. 1954). And in any event, Atlantic’s basic argument that a state statute on contribution may be applied to fill a void in federal máritime law completely misses the point of Halcyon. There the Supreme Court did not create a void in the maritime law; it squarely held there is no right of contribution among tort feasors in a non-collision case.
We hold that Judge Cooper correctly dismissed Atlantic’s third party complaint against Erie.
III.
Finally, Atlantic claims that the trial judge erred in refusing to set aside the $200,000 verdict as excessive and it urges us to order a remittitur.
Plaintiff, 37 years of age, sustained serious and painful injuries to his face, head, both legs and back. He has a 50% permanent disability in the use of his right leg and a 35% disability in the use of his left leg and low back. He was hospitalized for five weeks and was out of work for approximately one year following the accident. His annual wages were roughly $6,000. His life expectancy was 35 years, his working expectancy 22 years. His hospital and medical expenses were approximately $3,000. While he has returned to his former job, the record clearly establishes the permanency of his injuries, the diminution of his prospective earnings and the extent of his pain and suffering, past and future.
We note that the trial judge, who, along with the jury, was in a better position than we to observe plaintiff’s demeanor and to assess his injuries, had this to say:
“ . . .we can well understand how the jury came to regard plaintiff’s testimony as forthright, clean and without exaggeration. That portion of the entire trial record which concerns itself with the pain and suffering endured, and clearly to be anticipated, demonstrates experiences of deep-seated unremitting and excruciating pain, both physical and mental, over an extensive period of time.”
We hold that the verdict, while substantial, was not excessive. It was not “so high that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand.” Dagnello v. Long Island R. R. Co., 289 F.2d 797, 806 (2 Cir. 1961). Nor was it “fantastic.” La France v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 292 F.2d 649, 650 (2 Cir. 1961), aff’g 191 F.Supp. 164, 168-71. See also Gasperino v. Larsen Ford, Inc., 426 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2 Cir. 1970); Bazydlo v. Placid Marcy Co., 422 F.2d 842, 843 (2 Cir. 1970); Diapulse Corp. of America v. Birtcher Corp., 362 F.2d 736, 744 (2 Cir.), cert. dismissed, 385 U.S. 801 (1966).
Affirmed.
. The seven written interrogatories, together with the jury’s responses, are set forth in full in the District Court’s opinion. 315 F.Supp. 357, 360 n. 1.

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