have resulted in people injured, cars ruined, and horses dead or hurt

In an American news story titled "Judge Orders NYPD Turn Over Public Records On Horse-Drawn Carriage Incidents", there's this passage:

On Monday, carriage opponents said the judge’s ruling is sure to shed light on many more incidents.

“It’s in everybody’s best interests to see what’s actually happened; to see the records of how many accidents that have resulted in people injured, cars ruined, and horses dead or hurt,” said Dan Mathews, senior vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Is the boldfaced portion of the quotation of Dan Mathews grammatically fine as is, if it is to be used in a formal writing?

Also, is the original closer in meaning to which of the following?

(1) ...have resulted in people being injured, cars being ruined, and horses being dead or hurt

(2) ...have resulted in people who are injured, cars that are ruined, and horses that are dead or hurt

EDIT

After reviewing the answers, an edit seems to be in order. Let me rephrase the original sentence as follows:

...accidents that have resulted in people injured," said Dan Mathews...

Now, instead of having three items coordinated, we have only one: "people injured". Is this still grammatical without "being" between "people" and "injured"?

Solution 1:

The portion in bold is grammatically correct. Your option #1 most closely matches the meaning.

The construction in the cited piece simply uses post-positioned adjectives, for dramatic effect. It is identical to saying ". . . injured people, ruined cars, and dead or hurt horses".

But I take issue with the grammar preceding the bolded part of the cited text, which uses a "how many. . . that construction.

• how many accidents that have. . .

This should be either

• the many accidents that have. . .

Or

• how many accidents have. . . (less preferred, because it goes less well after "records of"— it would go better after "records showing")