Please use English, because you use English with the adjuster an

來源: 檸檬椰子汁 2016-06-29 06:14:26 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (1395 bytes)

You shoul say:

There is no dispute that the car ahead of me only felt one impact.  There is no dispute that the truck hit my car from the behind. 

There is a dispute about whether the one impact felt by the car in front of me, was caused by my car or the truck.  

There are two possibilities to explain the fact of one impact.  

(1) as the adjuster explained, I could have hit the car ahead of me first, moving it so far away from me that the car did not get hit again when the truck hit me.

(2) or a simpler explaination is that, I fully stopped WITHOUT hitting the car ahead of me, but the truck hit me from behind and caused my car to move forward and hit the car ahead of me. 

The simpler explanation is supported by the photographs I took at the scene of the accident.  The photos show that my car's front bumper was touching the back bumper of the car ahead of me.  The photos also show that there are some distance between my car and the truck behind me.  

The adjuster's explaination requires some distance between my car and the car ahead of me, which does not exist in my photos.  

Therefore although the adjuster's explaination is hypothetically possible, it is not what happened in this case. 

所有跟帖: 

謝謝檸檬! was trying hard to explain it in clear & understandable wa -秋揚- 給 秋揚 發送悄悄話 (205 bytes) () 06/29/2016 postreply 07:47:14

嗯此所謂不到黃河心不死。不見棺材不掉淚。這兒還有一Texas的主買新Honda隻買liability的呢。 -hello2002- 給 hello2002 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/29/2016 postreply 09:00:14

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”