I think the only possible argument that the injured woman can make is that the park doesn't clearly mark the starting and ending point of the "no-getting-off" zones. I remember she said that the park consists of both "getting-off zones" and "no-getting-off zones," and sometimes there is a "getting-off" zone (a rest/recreation area) between two "no-getting-off" zones. She said that she saw a sign indicating that they were entering a "no getting off zone," but when she got off the car, she thought they had already driven pass the "no-getting-off" zone. To my experience, it's not unthinkable for a park in Beijing to carelessly set up signs --- they may put a sign here but forget to put another sign there. If the injured woman can find evidence that the park did not clearly mark the end of the "no-getting-off" zone, she may have an argument for damages, and if that's the case, her case will be for the benefit of the whole society because it may serve as a warning to all other parks to set up signs clearly and carefully.
It seems to me that there are lawyers working on contingent fees behind this case because the woman's statement is precisely tailored toward legally relevant facts. I highly doubt if she made such a statement on her own. Also, the park is clearly capable of paying multi-million damages which gives the incentive for her attorneys to take the case. http://news.sina.com.cn/c/nd/2016-10-14/doc-ifxwvpar8016038.shtml