Before reading this article, please click the red "Follow" button, which is not only convenient for you to discuss and share, but also brings you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
Sentence | forest
Edit| Ogawa
Do you still have an impression of the sketch "Help or Not"?
After the performance of this sketch in the Spring Festival Gala, there was a wave of discussion all over the country, because this sketch reflected the social phenomenon of helping the elderly at that time.
The Peng Yu case, which once caused a sensation throughout the country, indirectly promoted the judicial work on the mainland because of the trial results at that time.
So, now that 17 years have passed, what happened to the party Peng Yu?
The old man fell and was helped
In November 2006, Ms. Xu Shoulan, 64, was waiting for a bus at a bus stop in Nanjing. While waiting, two buses of the same route in front and behind enter the station at the same time. Due to the large number of people in the front car, Xu Shoulan decided to take the back car. Just as she walked to the back car, Peng Yu, a 26-year-old young man, was getting out of the back door of the front car to change cars.
Just then, an accident happened. After Peng Yu got out of the car, someone suddenly hit him from behind. He looked back and saw an old lady lying on the ground in agony. This old lady is Xu Shoulan. Peng Yu immediately got out of the car to check the situation and found Xu Shoulan lying on the ground injured. At the same time, other passengers who got off the bus also came to help. Peng Yu and another passenger, Chen Erchun, helped Xu Shoulan who fell to the ground.
After that, Peng Yu took the initiative to contact Xu Shoulan's son and sent her to the hospital for emergency treatment. After a hospital examination, it was found that she had a fracture of her left femur neck. Peng Yu still stayed in the hospital and paid 200 yuan for the old man's medical expenses, and then left as a sign of care. Unexpectedly, this seemingly purely accidental trivial matter caused a chain reaction and then went to court. As a result, the two sides engaged in a long-term dispute.
Afterwards, Xu Shoulan's family contacted Peng Yu, hoping that he could be responsible for the old man's medical expenses. They insisted that Xu Shoulan had been knocked down by Peng Yu when he got down from the back door of the bus, and that Peng Yu should therefore pay for all the costs.
However, Peng Yu could not agree with this statement. In his opinion, the situation was very urgent at that time, and he only had a collision sensation behind him after getting out of the car, and he could not confirm who hit the person. And he immediately helped Xu Shoulan up later, and also funded part of the medical expenses. Therefore, he believes that he has nothing to do with the incident and is not liable to compensate for unlimited expenses.
The two sides could not reach an agreement on this disputed issue. Xu Shoulan insisted on compensation, while Peng Yu did not agree to be held responsible. Since then, they have negotiated several times without success. Finally, at the suggestion of the police, Xu Shoulan decided to resolve the case through legal channels.
So, in January 2007, 64-year-old Xu Shoulan officially served a lawsuit on 26-year-old Peng Yu, demanding that he compensate 136,000 yuan for damages.
Since the issue of attribution of responsibility could not be resolved through negotiation, the incident was eventually brought to court. On April 25, 2007, a court in Nanjing formally opened its hearing of the case.
After the trial, due to Xu Shoulan's advanced age and poor physical condition, she was unable to show it in person in front of the court. In contrast, the defendant Peng Yu was in the prime of life at this time, and he was busy with work. Therefore, Peng Yu decided to entrust his wife's representative to appear in court to defend his innocence.
In court, Peng Yu's wife argued with reason, believing that Xu Shoulan's fall that day had nothing to do with Peng Yu, and that he was only helping afterwards. However, due to the specific circumstances and details of the two parties at that time, some time has passed, and there is no evidence of a direct relationship.
In order to further verify the truth, the court requested the transcript of the oral statements provided by both parties at the police station at the time of the incident, which is crucial to confirm the question of "whether there was a collision". Unexpectedly, the police said that due to the maintenance of the property, these important transcript documents have disappeared. This also brings certain difficulties to the trial of the case.
On 13 June 2007, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court held a second hearing on a bus accident case in November 2006.
The 64-year-old plaintiff, Xu Shoulan, still insists that she was knocked to the ground by the 26-year-old defendant Peng Yu when she got off the back door of the bus. But Peng Yu denied this statement, he said that when he got out of the car, he did briefly collide with others, but it was certainly not Xu Shoulan.
The judge then asked Peng Yu why he took the initiative to help the person on the ground at that time, who was not the plaintiff you knocked down? Peng Yu responded out of kindness and wanted to help the elderly. However, Xu Shoulan could not agree and still insisted that the civil liability should be borne by Peng Yu.
In the second trial, it was difficult for the court to find a conclusive conclusion because Xu Shoulan and Peng Yu still had major differences on the cause of the accident. At this point, a new question emerged.
At that time, the records of the two parties in the public security organs were crucial to the understanding of the case. However, due to various reasons, the whereabouts of this valuable transcript material are unknown. The court could only ask the two police officers who recorded the transcript on the spot to redraft a transcript based on their impressions at the time.
However, Peng Yu questioned the content of the re-recorded transcript. He believes that the newly drafted transcript does not match the facts, and there may be suspicions of altering the truth. For this reason, Peng Yu chose to turn to the field of public opinion, hoping to expose the matter through the media.
Public opinion ferments
Peng Yu's move to publicly question the transcript made this ordinary car accident case a hot topic in a short period of time. Major news outlets intervened to discuss the authenticity of the transcripts. Some public opinion supports Peng Yu's questioning position, and there are also opinions that he is trying to overturn the case.
At the second hearing, the issue of transcription was officially put on the agenda. At this time, two new pieces of evidence appeared in the court.
First, the police provided a photograph claiming that it was taken by the director at the scene when Xu Shoulan and Peng Yu were making a record at the police station.
But Peng Yu questioned the photo. Through analysis and comparison, he found that the photo attributes did not match the model of the mobile phone used by the director at that time. What's even more bizarre is that the timing of the photo should have been taken after the transcript has been lost.
Under the judge's questioning, the head of the police station had to admit that the photo was actually taken by Xu Shoulan's relatives in the office. And the identity of this loved one is particularly eye-catching, he is a police officer.
Second, eyewitness Chen Erchun also testified in court. However, he was not sure who caused the accident, and could only describe the scene at the time, which did not play a decisive role in the case.
The emergence of these two new pieces of evidence is both helpful and difficult for Peng Yu.
On 4 September 2007, the Nanjing Gulou District People's Court handed down the verdict of the first instance in the case of the bus accident that occurred in November 2006. The court made a judgment and found that the defendant Peng Yu should bear 40% of the civil liability in the accident. The court stipulated that Peng Yu should pay a total of 45,876.36 yuan to the plaintiff Xu Shoulan in a lump sum.
However, the reasons given by the Court in its judgment do not appear to be convincing. According to the description of the written materials, the court questioned some of Peng Yu's unreasonable behaviors at that time on the basis of "analysis and reasoning based on life experience". The court said that if it was really righteous and courageous, Peng Yu should have helped the person who directly caused the accident, rather than just rushing to help the plaintiff.
In addition, the court also said that since the plaintiff Xu Shoulan's family had arrived afterwards, Peng Yu could have left without accompanying the plaintiff to the hospital. But the fact is that Peng Yu not only sent the plaintiff to the hospital, but also took the initiative to bear the medical expenses. The court held that this was very different from the way people think about it.
50 years backwards in morality?
The court's argument has been widely questioned. There is a general public view that a verdict should be based on direct evidence and not on the basis of subjective inference.
The court's first-instance judgment has sparked widespread controversy, and people have questioned the basis of the court's argument. In its judgment, the court pointed out that judging from daily life experience, if Peng Yu really acted bravely, what should have been done at that time should have been to catch the person who directly caused the accident, not just to help the victim.
However, there is a general public perception that it is a normal choice for the general public to help the injured elderly as soon as they witness an accident. The court found that Peng Yu was "unreasonable", an assertion that lacked basis.
In addition, the court also pointed out that since the family of the victim Xu Shoulan had already arrived at that time, Peng Yu could have left at that time without accompanying him to the hospital. But most people think that this is inconsiderate behavior in human terms. Occasional help only to leave in the middle of the rescue is morally negotiable.
After the court's first-instance verdict against Peng Yu was exposed, the public expressed concern and fear. If you encounter the same situation in the future, will you also face the risk of judicial accountability after choosing to take the initiative to help others?
As the court seems to have given a misleading example: a well-intentioned help could become negative evidence of oneself. This is undoubtedly troubling. People are worried that in order to protect themselves, they may subconsciously choose to leave the scene and no longer provide rescue.
At the same time, some netizens pointed out that if they encounter an old man chasing a car on the road again in the future, they may hesitate to stop and save him. Once you choose to help, it is difficult to guarantee that no one will use this matter to file a lawsuit against you and ask for compensation. This will become a psychological burden for every good citizen.
There are also comments that the court should not make too many analogies based on suspicious evidence, and even if it makes an erroneous ruling, it will not hurt to give reasons for correction. However, if it cannot be corrected in time, it will inevitably lead society to the danger of "helping people go to prison" and misleading. This will distort public opinion and lead to undesirable consequences.
After the court's first-instance judgment caused widespread controversy, both parties objected to the outcome and chose to appeal. But unexpectedly, when the appeal process was about to begin, the two parties suddenly announced that they had reached a settlement.
It is reported that Peng Yu agreed to pay a one-time compensation of 10,000 yuan to the plaintiff Xu Shoulan to settle the case. However, the two sides also clearly agreed that they would not disclose any information about the case to the public in the future.
Although Peng Yu and Xu Shoulan later chose to reconcile, the court's more than year-long trial process had a profound impact on both parties and their relatives and friends, and almost became a disaster.
As the core figure in this case, Peng Yu has been accused of being the perpetrator of the accident, and his work and life have been greatly affected. Later, in order to avoid the pressure of public opinion, he had to leave Nanjing with his family and disappeared from nowhere.
Xu Shoulan, who was framed, could not bear the attack of public opinion, so she could only move to escape. He endured mental and psychological torture for a long time, as well as incurable diseases, and finally passed away in 2010.
The case also affects more people involved. The presiding judge was later demoted, and what had been seen as a promising official career plummeted. Xu Shoulan's son was punished for leaking secrets.
And, more importantly, the Peng Yu case has deeply distorted social conscience and ethos. In the environment of "can't be helped", no one dares to take the initiative to lend a hand, which brings irreparable consequences to society.