Qingdao Court Apologizes for Misleading Publicity in Pedestrian Collision Case

The case involved a 59-year-old woman who was walking on the road while answering a phone call. She slowed down, stopped, and slowly turned around, but was still hit by a 29-year-old woman who was walking quickly from behind. The collision resulted in the older woman suffering a serious injury, including a right femur fracture. However, the court's initial publicity case contained significant discrepancies with the actual facts, including the incorrect identification of the perpetrator as a male, and a misleading description of the events leading up to the collision.

The court's statement mentioned that the victim "suddenly turned around and walked back," which contradicts the actual events. Surveillance footage showed that the victim slowly turned around and stopped, and there was still a distance between the two parties at that time. Additionally, the court's description of the perpetrator "failing to maintain a safe distance" was deemed inaccurate, as the perpetrator was actually walking quickly from behind while looking around and failed to notice the situation in front of her.

The incident occurred on May 19, 2023, and the plaintiff filed a civil compensation lawsuit on September 17, 2023. After evidence exchange and reviewing the surveillance footage, the parties agreed to negotiate a settlement, with the defendant agreeing to compensate the plaintiff with 70,000 yuan, paid in installments. The plaintiff accepted this proposal, and on June 27, 2024, both parties signed a mediation agreement.

The controversy surrounding the discrepancy between the online reports and the actual case facts led the Qingdao Lianggang District People's Court to issue an apology for the inaccurate description and inappropriate statement regarding "safe distance," acknowledging that it misled the public. The court has pledged to learn from this experience, improve the quality of its legal education efforts, and strictly implement the "who enforces the law, who popularizes the law" principle.

The case has sparked intense discussions online, with some netizens expressing sympathy for the perpetrator, arguing that the victim's actions were unforeseeable, and others supporting the court's decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining safety distances in public places. The court's handling of the case has also led to a re-evaluation of their approach to public education and awareness campaigns, with plans to improve the accuracy and clarity of their descriptions of cases and facts, enhance the quality of their public education and awareness campaigns, and implement stricter standards and requirements for their "who enforces the law, who popularizes the law" responsibility system.

In the aftermath of the controversy, the court has taken steps to address the issues that arose from their handling of the case, acknowledging that their previous description of the facts and choice of words were inaccurate and inappropriate, leading to widespread misinformation and confusion among the public. By learning from the mistakes made in the case, the court hopes to regain the trust of the public and provide more effective and accurate information in the future. The incident has served as a valuable lesson for the court, highlighting the importance of accurate and clear communication in their public education and awareness campaigns.