![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Back in February I witnessed an accident: car vs. pedestrian. It was Sunday afternoon, and I had just left the parish hall after coffee hour, pushing Colin in the stroller and Alex at my side. Just a few feet in front of us, an SUV turned onto the small side street behind the parish hall and hit a man crossing the street. We saw him bounce off the hood and land in the street. I called 911, waited until the paramedics came, and gave a statement to the police. Other members of our church provided first aid and comforted the driver, who was distraught. The guy seemed essentially all right.
Two months later, the kids still talk about it. Alex had a lot of questions the day it happened, but then seemed satisfied with our answers. She was initially upset (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
acceberskoorb helped a lot by talking to her while I was talking to 911 and the cops) but not afterward. Colin wanted to talk about it again and again for weeks: "Man hit a car. He's okay. Ambulance came and helped the man. I saw a police car." Again and again.
Last week I got a call from an insurance adjuster who wanted to talk to me about the accident. She got my permission to record the call and then questioned me for about half an hour. We spent most of the time trying to establish the basic scenario: where was I, where was the pedestrian, where was the car, what were the streets and crossings like. I think of myself as a good communicator, but she kept sounding confused and asking me to re-explain or saying the wrong thing and needing to be corrected.
"I don't have a lot of confidence in the investigator," I told Michael afterward. "She didn't seem to have a very good grasp of what happened." As I was saying it, it sounded weird to me, and I realized: "Wait: by the time she got around to calling witnesses, there's no way she wouldn't have known that Charles Street is one-way and that the man was crossing Hamilton."
Now I think she was trying to see if I would give credible testimony, and if she could shake me off my story. She did come pretty close to confusing me - I wound up having to draw a map while I talked to her, so that I could keep track of what was, in reality, a very simple scene. I'm sure she had a map in front of her the whole time. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.
At the end she asked me who I thought was at fault. I said that I didn't think that the driver had been reckless, but that I couldn't think of any way that the accident wasn't her fault. She said that the insurance company had just about figured that they were responsible, but wanted to talk to me before concluding the case. I hope that means that they're planning to settle and that I won't have to testify in court.
Two months later, the kids still talk about it. Alex had a lot of questions the day it happened, but then seemed satisfied with our answers. She was initially upset (
acceberskoorb helped a lot by talking to her while I was talking to 911 and the cops) but not afterward. Colin wanted to talk about it again and again for weeks: "Man hit a car. He's okay. Ambulance came and helped the man. I saw a police car." Again and again.Last week I got a call from an insurance adjuster who wanted to talk to me about the accident. She got my permission to record the call and then questioned me for about half an hour. We spent most of the time trying to establish the basic scenario: where was I, where was the pedestrian, where was the car, what were the streets and crossings like. I think of myself as a good communicator, but she kept sounding confused and asking me to re-explain or saying the wrong thing and needing to be corrected.
"I don't have a lot of confidence in the investigator," I told Michael afterward. "She didn't seem to have a very good grasp of what happened." As I was saying it, it sounded weird to me, and I realized: "Wait: by the time she got around to calling witnesses, there's no way she wouldn't have known that Charles Street is one-way and that the man was crossing Hamilton."
Now I think she was trying to see if I would give credible testimony, and if she could shake me off my story. She did come pretty close to confusing me - I wound up having to draw a map while I talked to her, so that I could keep track of what was, in reality, a very simple scene. I'm sure she had a map in front of her the whole time. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.
At the end she asked me who I thought was at fault. I said that I didn't think that the driver had been reckless, but that I couldn't think of any way that the accident wasn't her fault. She said that the insurance company had just about figured that they were responsible, but wanted to talk to me before concluding the case. I hope that means that they're planning to settle and that I won't have to testify in court.
no subject
I hope you don't have to testify too. Presumably if she actually said that the insurance company had reached a conclusion unfavourable to their own client, they're not going to court? That seems like a weird thing to say otherwise to a witness.