Social Studies, 02.02.2019 20:50
Apedestrian sued a driver for personal injuries in federal court, properly invoking diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. in the complaint, the pedestrian alleged that the driver ran a red light and struck the pedestrian while the pedestrian was in the crosswalk. concurrent with the accident, a police report was prepared on which the name and address of a witness to the accident was listed, but neither party requested a copy of the report from the police department. thus, when the pedestrian submitted an interrogatory to the driver for the names and addresses of persons with knowledge of the accident known to the driver, the driver truthfully omitted the name of the witness. when asked during his deposition whether he knew of any witnesses, the driver again truthfully answered "i don't know of any." at trial, the jury found for the driver. in one of the special interrogatories answered by the jury, the jury found that the driver had the green light and that the pedestrian was crossing against the light. six months and a day after a final judgment was rendered in favor of the driver, the pedestrian's attorney was contacted by the witness, who stated that the driver ran a red light and that the pedestrian had the "walk" sign when he attempted to cross the road. the pedestrian's attorney immediately moved for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence, and the trial judge granted the motion. on appeal, what should the court do?