Court Opinion

ID: 9447035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:23:35.68375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:52.431088
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Chief Judge
(concurring specially) .
In my opinion the dirt hauled by the vehicle should be considered a part of the vehicle in construing the clause “ * * * actual physical contact of * * * a vehicle with the property covered hereunder.”
Further, unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise,1 I think that our Fifth Circuit is committed to applying the federal rather than the state test of sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict, even though federal jurisdiction is rested on diversity of citizenship.2
Applying the federal test, however, in my opinion, there is no substantial evidence from which a jury could properly find that the collapse of the wall was caused by its actual physical contact with either the load of dirt or the vehicle proper. I therefore concur specially.

. See Dick v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1959, 359 U.S. 437, 445, 79 S.Ct. 921, 3 L.Ed.2d 935.

. White v. New York Life Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 504, 509; Wright v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, 5 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 303, 305; Reuter v. Eastern Air Lines, 5 Cir., 1955, 226 F.2d 443, 445; Continental Casualty Co. v. Holmes, 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 269.