A particularly alarming thing here is that the driver that hit the pedestrian first must have broken the law by overtaking the leading (stationary) car on the zig-zag lines approaching the crossing, and yet that doesn't appear to have been taken into account (though I haven't seen the full report of course).
I got confused by that at first, but I think it means the road had multiple lanes on that side at least.
I'm surprised then on this case that the driver that stopped was not considered contributory because him stopping may have led to the pedestrian believing it was safe to cross.