opinion: Charles SCHOONOVER, Appellee, v. NATIONAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Appellant.
  No. 85-1708.
  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
  Submitted Dec. 31, 1985.
  Decided Feb. 20, 1986.
  John Wesley Hall, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
  William Gary Holt, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
  Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  National Cable Communications Corporation (NCC) appeals from an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial. This case is a result of a December 2, 1982 auto accident in which a truck driven by Joe Ferrell struck from the rear a car driven by Charles Schoonover. Schoonover brought this negligence action against NCC on the theory of respondeat superior. The jury returned a verdict for Schoonover in the amount of $43,500.00 compensation for his injuries as well as interest and costs. We affirm.
  On appeal, NCC challenges submission of the following instruction:
  National Cable Communications Corporation asserts that Joe D. Ferrell was an independent contractor for whose conduct it is not responsible, instead of an employee for whose conduct it would be responsible.
  Since National Cable Communications Corporation admits having employed Joe D. Ferrell in some capacity, National Cable Communications Corporation has the burden of proving that Joe D. Ferrell was an independent contractor.
  NCC argues that the instruction improperly allocated the burden of proof. The instruction is based on Arkansas Model Jury Instruction 209. Under Arkansas law,
  when it is shown that the person causing the injury was at the time rendering a service for the defendant and being paid for that service, and the facts presented are as consistent with the master-servant relationship as with the independent contractor relationship, then the burden is on the one asserting the independence of the contractor to show the true relationship of the parties.
  Phillips Coop. Gin Co. v. Toll, 228 Ark. 891, 893, 311 S.W.2d 171, 172 (1958). See also Rubly v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 219 Ark. 912, 914, 245 S.W.2d 401, 402 (1952); St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. v. Davenport, 80 Ark. 244, 245, 96 S.W. 994 (1906).
  Ferrell was a cable installer for NCC. Without objection Schoonover testified that Ferrell had said at the scene of the accident that he was an employee of NCC and that he was transporting cable for the company. A former NCC cable installer testified that he was trained by NCC and NCC gave him daily instructions. He also testified that a sign on his truck and a shirt he wore had NCC’s name on them. NCC purchased workers’ compensation insurance for its installers and provided Ferrell with a W-2 form. By virtue of this evidence, Schoonover satisfied his initial burden and the jury instruction properly reflected NCC’s burden to go forward and prove that Ferrell was an independent contractor.
  Relatedly NCC argues that insufficient evidence existed for the jury’s finding that Ferrell was its employee. The district court held that the jury could reasonably conclude that Ferrell was not an independent contractor and denied NCC’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue. The standards for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict are the same under federal and Arkansas law. Compare Brown v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 703 F.2d 1050,1052 (8th Cir.1983) with Crail v. Northwestern National Ins. Co., 282 Ark. 175, 176, 666 S.W.2d 706, 707 (1984). After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Schoonover, we find that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict and the district court properly denied NCC’s motion. As indicated, there was evidence that Ferrell had said at the scene of the accident that he was employed by NCC and was transporting cable for the company. Considering in addition testimony given by the former NCC cable installer and by the President of NCC regarding the nature of NCC’s relationship with its workers, the jury reasonably could have concluded that Ferrell was an employee of NCC.
  No reversible error appearing, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
  . The Honorable Elsijane T. Roy, United States District Judge, Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.
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.