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:
HECHT CO., Inc., v. HARRISON.
No. 8315.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued April 12, 1943.
Decided July 9, 1943.
Mr. Leroy S. Bendheim, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Lawrence Koenigsberger and Lewis Jacobs, both of Washington, D. C, were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Ralph A. Cusick, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before VINSON, EDGERTON, and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff in a personal injury suit. A difference in floor level between two parts of appellant’s store was accommodated by a ramp about 22 inches wide which extended lengthwise through an aisle. The height of the ramp was variously stated as 1% and 2yz inches. It was covered with linoleum about 3/16 of an inch thick. On its lower side the ramp sloped downward about % inch in 5 inches. At the lower edge of the ramp the linoleum was covered by a thin strip of brass. This strip was not level but sloped downward toward the uncovered floor. The drop at the edge was about 3/16 of an inch. No sign or other warning called attention to the ramp or its edge. Appellee, a customer in the store, had occasion to walk parallel with this edge, stepped on it, turned his ankle, lost his balance and was injured. Thousands of customers walked through the aisle, before and after the accident, without injury. About a year later the place was converted into a carpenter shop and ceased to be open to the public.
Storekeepers must use reasonable care to make their floors safe for customers. Whatever may be said of an unusually low step, or a step in an unusual position, or an outside ramp which connects an outer door with a sidewalk, we think the jury were justified in finding that the ramp here involved was not reasonably safe.
The court allowed a view of the premises. Appellant complains of this on the ground that conditions had changed. The linoleum had become worn and dust had accumulated since the accident, but it does not appear that any change material to the risk had occurred. In fact appellant’s counsel told the jury that the floor was just as it had been at the time of the accident. Appellant also complains of measurements and discussions which took place during the view. If there was any error in the conduct of the view it was not prejudicial, since nothing material occurred which was not also covered by testimony in open court
Affirmed.
Associate Justice VINSON took part in the consideration of this case and agreed in the result, but resigned before the opinion was written.
Hellyer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 62 App.D.C. 318, 67 F.2d 584; Young Men’s Shop v. Odend’hal, 73 App.D.C. 354, 121 F.2d 857.
Bell v. Central Nat’l Bank, 28 App.D.C. 580.
Dickson v. Emporium Mercantile Co., Inc., 193 Minn. 629, 259 N.W. 375; Haddon v. Snellenburg, 293 Pa. 333, 143 A. 8.
Hogan v. Metropolitan Bldg. Co., 120 Wash. 82, 206 P. 959; Mullen v. Sensenbrenner Mercantile Co., Mo.Sup., 260 S.W. 982, 33 A.L.R. 176.
Cf. Lunny v. Pepe, 116 Conn. 684, 165 A. 552.
Cf. City of Emporia v. Juengling, 78 Kan. 595, 96 P. 850, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 223.

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: 5