September 24, 2007 13:42:22 Zhejiang Online News Website
After the verdict, Peng Yu stood in front of the court with a frustrated face, "Southern Metropolis Daily".
He claimed to help an old lady who had fallen, but he became the defendant. The court awarded compensation of more than 40,000 yuan based on "common sense inference", but netizens almost unanimously supported the defendant. These dramatic changes happened to a 27-year-old boy, Peng Yu, and his life changed forever.
Since the first trial in March this year, Peng Yu’s case has gradually attracted more and more public attention, until it suddenly became a hot topic in Nanjing after the first trial verdict. Netizens across the country and domestic and foreign media also expressed deep concern. Regardless of reality and the Internet, people have launched an unprecedented fierce debate on whether to step forward to help the elderly when they fall in the future.
The incident became a mystery.
Peng Yu once complained to the media that on October 20, 2006, 165438 he kindly helped an old man who fell to the ground at the Nanjing No. 83 bus station and sent him to the hospital for examination. I don't want to. When the injured Mrs. Xu and her family learned that the injury was serious and would cost tens of thousands of yuan in medical expenses, they insisted that Peng Yu had hit someone and asked her to bear tens of thousands of yuan in medical expenses. After being rejected, Mrs. Xu filed a lawsuit with the Nanjing Gulou District People's Court, demanding that Peng Yu compensate for various losses of more than 13,000 yuan.
Concerning the incident, the plaintiff and defendant had different accounts. The local Jinling Evening News reported that Peng Yu, a technician from a communications company in Nanjing, recalled that at about 9 a.m. on October 20 last year, he took the No. 83 bus and got off at Shuiximen Square Station. He got off the bus first and saw an old lady lying not far from the platform. Out of good intentions, he hurriedly stepped forward to help him up. At the time of the incident, a man in his 50s also came to help and helped the injured Ms. Xu to the roadside. According to eyewitnesses, Mrs. Xu said at that time: "I won't hurt you." Seeing her niece and son arriving one after another, Chen Erchun immediately called Mrs. Xu's family and left.
Later, Peng Yu called a taxi for Mrs. Xu and her family, but Mrs. Xu’s son said he was too busy and asked Peng Yu if he could accompany her to the hospital. Peng Yu agreed. At the hospital, when she learned that the tibia was fractured and that it would cost tens of thousands of yuan to replace the artificial femoral head, Mrs. Xu's attitude immediately changed. She said to Peng Yu: "Young man, it was you who hit me!" Peng Yu was stunned at that time.
However, the events described by Mrs. Xu are quite different. According to Modern Express, Mrs. Xu said: "I saw him knock me down with my own eyes!" At that time, two No. 83 buses entered the station. When she arrived at the station, she found that the No. 83 bus behind her was relatively empty. On the way, she was knocked down by Peng Yu who got off the back door of the previous bus. Mrs. Xu said: "Both of us have pensions and medical insurance. Our son works in the Public Security Bureau, not because he cannot afford medical expenses, but because he wants justice." After identification, Mrs. Xu's injuries constituted eight Level disability, medical expenses have cost more than 40,000 yuan.
Witness Chen Erchun stated during the third court hearing on July 6 this year that he saw Mrs. Xu running towards the third bus with a thermos bottle in her hand. As she ran behind the second car, she fell for unknown reasons. At this time, Peng Yu got out of the back door of the second car, walked a few steps, stepped forward to help, then stepped forward to help himself, and greeted the old man's children. But he admitted that he did not see the moment when Peng Yu and Mrs. Xu collided, so who hit whom became the mystery of "Rashomon".
But Mrs. Xu said in court that she did not know Mr. Chen. "It's not him, that person has a mole on his face."
Hearing that Mrs. Xu denied knowing him, Mr. Chen was very angry and pointed out that he had called the old lady to contact his family at that time, and there were calls on his mobile phone Record as evidence.
65438 On June 4 this year, Mrs. Xu filed a lawsuit with the Nanjing Gulou District People's Court on the grounds that Peng Yu knocked her to the ground and caused her injuries, demanding compensation for various losses totaling 136,000 yuan. .
On September 5, 2007, the Nanjing Gulou District People’s Court issued the first-instance verdict on the Peng Yu case. According to media reports, the Gulou District People's Court believed that the old lady was injured in a collision with Peng Yu.
"Based on the analysis of daily life experience, the plaintiff fell to the ground not only due to external factors of others, but also due to his own reasons, such as tripping or slipping. However, neither party stated the fact that the old lady tripped or slipped during the trial. . Therefore, based on the existing evidence in this case, we should focus on analyzing the external force that caused the old lady to be knocked down.”
The verdict stated: “The crime occurred at a public bus stop and the time of the crime was in the morning when the visibility was relatively low. Good times. The accident happened very quickly, and the person who knocked down the old lady could not easily escape. According to Peng Yu's admission, he was the first person to get out of the car. According to common sense, it was more likely that he and the old lady would collide. "The court held that, "If the defendant is doing good things, according to social norms, the old lady's family can explain the facts when they arrive, let the old lady's family take her to the hospital, and then go on their own. Leave. But Peng Yu did not make such a choice, and his behavior was obviously contrary to reason. "
The court therefore ordered Peng Yu to compensate the plaintiff for 40% of the loss, which was 45,876 yuan, to be paid within 10 days.
According to a media reporter, the plaintiff’s lawyer expressed dissatisfaction with the first-instance judgment and believed that Peng Yu’s loss was relatively small. Some netizens once called on everyone to call to question Mrs. Xu and her son. However, when reporters called the number provided by netizens, the voice prompts were either disabled or empty.
According to the address of the plaintiff Mrs. Xu’s home provided by netizens, the reporter went to Mrs. Xu’s residence and found that the doors and windows of the unit were closed, there was no movement in the house, and no one answered the doorbell.
A person on duty in the community said that Mrs. Xu and his wife, Mr. Pan, did live in this unit. A retired old man told reporters that Mrs. Xu was in poor health and usually lived in seclusion. Mr. Pan sometimes goes out to play chess with retired elderly people in the community. About half a month ago, the old man learned about the verdict of Peng Yu's case while listening to the radio. It was only after a neighbor reminded him that he found out what happened at Lao Pan's house. At the same time, the old man expressed his willingness to trust Peng Yu.
When the reporter called Peng Yu's attorney Gao Shidong, the other party said: "There is nothing to say about Peng Yu's case." Then he hung up the phone on the grounds that he was busy in a meeting.
The reporter obtained Peng Yu’s mobile phone number from a media worker in Nanjing, but after calling several times, it prompted: “The number you dialed has been turned off.”
The first-instance verdict was rejected by netizens Questioning
Once the verdict was announced, online public opinion was in an uproar. Shocked, netizens expressed strong doubts about the verdict.
Some netizens questioned that it was incredible that Mrs. Xu could still remember whether there were moles on the witness’s face when she was injured and in severe pain. But she denied the presence of witnesses, and phone records from witnesses and their families undermined her lies and raised suspicions of ulterior motives.
At the first court hearing, Peng Yu applied to the presiding judge for the original interrogation transcript from the police station at that time, but the police station refused to provide it because it was under renovation. In the third trial, the plaintiff’s attorney presented an electronic file purported to be the original interrogation record and police memory material as evidence in his favor. So some netizens don’t understand: Is the director of the police station guilty of perjury?
In a newsreel filmed by Jiangsu TV City Channel's "Both Party A and Party B" column, the TV station reporter asked whose mobile phone was used to record the electronic transcript of Director Lu of the city police station. Director Lu confirmed that it was his own mobile phone. And Peng Yu used his communication knowledge on the spot to retrieve the photo information, proving that the photo was not taken by Director Lu’s mobile phone. Under questioning, Director Lu told the truth that the photo was taken by Mrs. Xu’s son. "Why did Mrs. Xu's son leave an electronic transcript the day after the incident? Can you predict that this transcript will disappear in the future?" Many netizens doubted, "I heard that Mrs. Xu's son is a police officer. And the transcript disappeared Does it matter?"
A lawyer named Ning Qingping expressed his views online. In his view, according to the distribution principle of "whoever claims, who shall provide evidence" in civil litigation, since Mrs. Xu has made a claim against Peng Yu, she should bear the burden of proof. If Mrs. Xu Can cannot prove that Peng Yu hurt her, she should bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit.
The lawyer believes that the evidence for the judgment in this case is unclear and the basic facts are unclear. Moreover, judges use empirical rules that violate public order and good customs as the basis for reasoning, which clearly deviates from the value orientation of civil law.
"But the judge's thinking in this case is indeed innovative. He can reason based on rules of thumb and publicly disclose his evaluation process, which is worthy of recognition. But for the requirements of the legal profession, such as self-admission, compulsory defense, and the components of hearsay evidence, He was not sure about the handling rules; I did not grasp the basic purpose of civil law, so I made this wrong judgment."
In addition to doubts, netizens also heard the lament that good things are hard to do. "After reading this case, I can only lament that moral values ??have been trampled. I can only say to Peng Yu: I can only blame you for not doing good things, because when they bite you in turn, they will tear the hearts of good people into pieces. "
"According to the court's decision, if we bump into someone or see someone being knocked down in the future, it is best to avoid it."
"If you don't protect yourself, you will be punished by heaven and earth. . Is this the moral standard of the Chinese people?"
The words of Chen Erchun, the only witness in this case, were widely circulated among netizens: "Friends, who will dare to do good things in the future?"
Reality? , people also express doubts about the traditional virtue of helping others. The reporter saw at the Shuiximen Square stop of the No. 83 bus at the scene of the incident that the traffic here was very calm. The street garden behind the station was lined with green trees, and there were old people and children flying kites. When asked whether the passersby waiting for the bus knew about Peng Yu's case, he immediately expressed his support for Peng Yu's appeal and hoped that he would win the case. But when a reporter asked him if he would help if something like this happened that day, he said: "I might have taken the initiative to help before, but after the Peng Yu incident, I stopped minding my own business. This is not asking for trouble." "A taxi driver complained to reporters that he discovered the theft while riding the bus. When he was threatened by a thief because of his alcohol withdrawal, no one on the bus helped him.
More people expressed support for Peng Yu.
A netizen with the same name as Peng Yu believed, "It shouldn't be difficult to leave when there were many people in the car; or, you could just pick up the old lady and take her to the hospital. I guess the one who is depressed at this time is not Brother Peng Yu. “He believes that today, when society generally lacks a sense of responsibility, the law should try its best to encourage people to build the confidence to take responsibility. "
Many netizens spontaneously set up accounts for Peng Yu and donated money to him.
On September 12, a post in Peng Yu's tone appeared on a website, "All those who care about me. Friends: Hello! After the first trial, I left Nanjing for a while for personal reasons. When I learned that everyone had set up a 'Peng Yuqun' and a 'discussion board' for me, I was very moved. I cannot express my gratitude in words for receiving the attention and care from so many enthusiastic friends. I am writing this letter to you today to tell you some of my thoughts and decisions. First, I cannot accept your donation. I have thought about this clearly and made it clear. I thank you for your kindness. For me, Xiao Peng, your support is enough. Second, regarding my previous job, I took the initiative to resign: because of the lawsuit. I didn’t go to work for three months, and my salary and bonuses were paid as usual during this period. My boss also put a lot of pressure on me, but because I was focused on the lawsuit and had no intention of working, I resigned from the company.” The reporter was unable to contact Peng Yu at this time. The authenticity of the post cannot be verified.
Peng Yu has appealed.
According to the office phone number of Wang Hao, the judge in the Gulou District Court who was hearing Peng Yu’s case, published by netizens, the reporter called, but a man who answered the phone said that Wang Hao was not there and then hung up.
A staff member of the research office of the Nanjing Gulou District People’s Court confirmed to reporters that Peng Yu appealed to the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court on September 18. He said that the case was undergoing legal proceedings and the hospital was unwilling to accept interviews from reporters.
“I don’t know where he is, but I’m sure he will appeal because it is related to his reputation.” A media worker in Nanjing said.
He said that in retrospect, on the morning of June 5438 065438 October 20, 2006, no one could tell the truth except the two parties. The court must explain to the people, "otherwise how will it be treated by the public in the future?" Moral education? ”
Why did the Peng Yu case cause such a strong response? The reporter said that the "Peng Yu case" can be said to be the first case of reasoning trial in China and a challenge to China's current judicial system. According to several lawyers interviewed by this reporter, the trial was never appropriate.
At the city police station of the Nanjing Public Security Traffic Security Bureau, the reporter found Shen Fugen, the policeman who took notes for Peng Yu on the day of the incident. He made it clear that he would not accept an interview.
The reporter learned from an instructor at Chengguan Police Station that director Lu Changbin had been transferred. But the reporter saw his photo (alarm number 017210) hanging in the police column in the lobby on the basement floor of the police station.
After reading this report, if the second instance upholds the first instance verdict, I can draw the following lessons: If you don’t do good things, nothing will happen, but if you do good things, you will get into trouble. Lessons from experience: Don’t do good deeds and cause less trouble.