...can be say "He was involved in a car accident"?

[Tan Elaine]

If a pedestrian gets into an accident involving a car, can be say "He was involved in a car accident"?

Thanks.

 

[emsr2d2]

It's unlikely. Usually, a car accident involves two (or more) vehicles. I would be more specific: "The pedestrian was hit by a car" or "The pedestrian was run over by a car". However, you might hear people say something like "There was a car accident outside my house earlier. A speeding car hit a pedestrian". It would be better if they simply said "There was an accident outside my house earlier".

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

That is a very good question.

"He was in a car accident" would definitely make me think that he was in a car but, "He was involved in a car accident" is ambiguous.

Because it's ambiguous I think it would be better to clarify it.

"He was run over"
"He was hit by a car", and so on.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"He was a culprit in the accident."
Is it also possible?

 

[5jj]

He was the culprit if the accident was his fault, but we are more likely to say he was to blame (for the accident), he was responsible (for the accident, he caused the accident, the accident was his fault.

 

[Barb_D]

If someone he was "involved in a car accident" my first thought would be that he was a passenger in a car that was in the accident, or that there were many cars in the accident, but this driver was not seriously hurt or his car seriously damaged, nor did he cause serious injury or damage.

Using "involved" sounds too removed/remote to describe for someone who was "struck by a car" or "run over."