opinion: Eva Lee LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BARGE LINES, INC., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
  No. 14600.
  United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
  Feb. 24, 1965.
  Arthur H. Schwab, Chicago, 111., Harry Alan Sherman, Pittsburgh, Pa., S. El-dridge Sampliner, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
  Francis B. Libbe, Chicago, 111., David Jacker, John M. O’Connor, Jr., of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, III., for appellee.
  Before DUFFY and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges, and GRANT, District Judge.
  DUFFY, Circuit Judge.
  This suit is for damages based on 1) unseaworthiness of defendant’s motor vessel; 2) for negligence under the Jones Act, and 3) for maintenance and cure. The District Court submitted to the jury plaintiff’s claims as to unseaworthiness of the vessel, and her claim under the Jones Act. However, the Court declined to submit the issue of maintenance and cure to the jury. The District Court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to additional maintenance and cure.
  The issues on 1 and 2 were submitted to the jury on a special verdict, and the District Court entered judgment for defendant thereon.
  Plaintiff was employed as a “mess-girl” upon defendant’s motor vessel, Harry S. Truman, which was in navigation at the time of the occurrence. Plaintiff had been assigned sleeping quarters aboard the vessel. Among plaintiff’s duties was the duty of washing dishes.
  Two kinds of water were used on the vessel, — the drinking water which was brought aboard the vessel in containers, and the bathing and dishwashing water which was drawn from the river by a water system installed in the hold of the vessel.
  The voyage in question was from St. Louis to Chicago and on September 2, 1957, the vessel was in the Illinois waterway.
  Plaintiff claims that while sleeping in her bunk, there occurred what seemed to be a “big explosion” which rocked the boat. Later, members of the crew claimed the jolt was caused by a collision with a bridge. The next day, plaintiff claims she noticed the water she was using failed to clean the dishes, necessitating the use of the drinking water for that purpose.
  Plaintiff further claims that on September 2, 1957, she took a shower and washed her hair in a wash basin; that she got water in her left ear which she had difficulty in shaking out. That two or three hours later, her ear began burning and itching, and there was drainage from the ear. Upon asking for help from the captain, she was given some ear drops by means of a medicine dropper.
  Shortly thereafter she had a high temperature and she then asked the captain for relief from duty. The captain refused to relieve plaintiff from duty saying he could not find a substitute for her. He told plaintiff he would relieve her when the boat returned to St. Louis.
  Plaintiff claims that thereafter she experienced pain which prevented her from sleeping. It is without dispute that no medical help was furnished to her aboard the vessel except the eardrops hereinbe-fore described.
  Sixteen days after the occurrence, when the vessel reached St. Louis, plaintiff was given a Master’s Certificate for admission to the United States Public Health Service Hospital in that city.
  It was error for the trial court to decline to submit the issue of maintenance and cure to the jury. In Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 21, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 10 L.Ed.2d 720, the Supreme Court stated “ * * * Accordingly, we hold that a maintenance and cure claim joined with a Jones Act claim must be submitted to the jury when both arise out of one set of facts.” The Court further held specifically that the seaman was entitled to a jury trial as of right on his maintenance and cure claim.
  The issues in the instant case other than maintenance and cure were submitted to the jury on December 10, 1962. The date of the Fitzgerald decision by the United States Supreme Court was June 10, 1963. The “Memorandum, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment” were signed by the District Court on August 1, 1963.
  Counsel for plaintiff claims he was misled and confused by the manner in which the issues of the case were submitted to the jury. The judge had indicated that he was going to submit two special interrogatories “leading to a general verdict.” Plaintiff’s counsel says that he understood the claims based on unseaworthiness and the claims of negligence under the Jones Act would be submitted to the jury under Rule 49(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under this Rule, these issues would have been submitted upon a general verdict with the interrogatories attached. Plaintiff’s counsel says he planned his arguments to the jury accordingly, and that it was only after the charge to the jury was completed that he realized a general verdict was not to be submitted.
  Defendant urges that if plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on her maintenance and cure claim, the claim for maintenance and cure only should be returned to the District Court for a trial by jury. Defendant cites Franks v. United States Lines Co., 2 Cir., 324 F.2d 126.
  Normally, plaintiff’s claims of unseaworthiness of the vessel, for negligence under the Jones Act and for maintenance and cure would all be submitted to the same jury. Under the circumstances of this case, including the claims of plaintiff’s counsel that he was misled as to the form of the verdict to be submitted, we think justice requires that the issues as above indicated should all be submitted to the same jury.
  Reversed and remanded with instructions that the issues as to unseaworthiness of the vessel, negligence under the Jones Act and for maintenance and cure, be submitted to a jury.
  Reversed and remanded.
instruction: 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.