Content area
Full Text
Abstract Can money motivate heroic deeds? China believes so. After Xu XX v. Peng Yu developed a poor judicial precedent that lowered the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in a personal injury claim, the media's focus on the controversial reasoning of the case created public fear of civil liability. High-profile media attention on similar events that followed reinforced the fears that the Peng Yu case engendered and chilled helping behavior in China. Yet, a tragic hit-and-run accident involving a two-year-old child in Foshan, China reinvigorated the discourse on the restoration of helping behavior in China. Guangdong Province proposed new legislation to counteract the moral apathy prevalent in its cities. This legislation, however, is insufficient in changing social behavior, as it only offers monetary coverage for property damaged in the act of rescue. The regulation fails to address the deficiencies of the judicial system in reaching a true and fair decision. This comment analyzes the impact of the Peng Yu case in causing China's declining helping behavior. In order to reestablish and encourage helping behavior in China, this comment argues that the government should protect the public from civil liability and restore the public's lost faith in the justice system.
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
I. Introduction
A series of high-profile incidents severely impacted the sense of civic consciousness in China. The seminal case, Xu XX v. Peng Yu, successfully chilled helping behavior1 tendencies within members of the general public.2 In November 20, 2006, Peng Yu, an alleged Good Samaritan,3 helped an elderly woman who fell while coming off a bus.4 With arguably good intentions, Peng sent the senior to the hospital and offered 200 RMB to help cover the cost of hospital fees. Ms. Xu, the injured senior, returned this kindness by suing Peng for personal injury compensation, claiming he caused her fall.6 Despite the plaintiff's lack of evidence proving Peng had caused her injuries, the Nanjing court found that "experience from everyday life" sufficiently proves that no one would in good conscience help someone unless they felt guilty.7 The court held Peng liable for damages and awarded Ms. Xu 45,876.36 RMB8 (approximately $6,076 USD)9 as compensation. This verdict received widespread media coverage, engendering public outcry over the controversial decision.10 The most criticized portion...