
Passage: The case of Xu Yunhe in Tianjin: while driving, Xu Yunhe encountered Mrs. Wang crossing the guardrail in the center of the road. Mrs. Wang fell to the ground and was injured. Xu helped her up. Mrs. Wang insisted that she was hit by Xu. After judicial identification, Xu's car did not touch her. The court of first instance held that Xu was only four or five meters away from Mrs. Wang when she saw her, and that she must have fallen because she was frightened by Xu's car and ordered Xu to bear 40% of the responsibility and compensate Mrs. Wang 108606 yuan.
Question: Which of the following statements best points out the flaws in the first instance of the case?
A. A.The judge reasoned against common sense: Mrs. Wang crossed the guardrail illegally and should have expected a car in the driveway, while being frightened was usually when she saw something unexpected
B. B.The verdict goes against traditional morality: like the Nanjing Pengyu case, it will deter the public from extending a helping hand to the injured
C. C.The verdict did not clarify the facts, and the evidence was seriously insufficient. It was possible that Mrs. Wang fell first and then drove over
D. D.The verdict reversed the cause and the result
Answer: