Incident Narrative for the 47 Maple Street Fall
Incident notes taken after your route:
"Date: 12 Jan. Time approx. 07:52. Address 47 Maple St. Slipped on front steps - ice under light snow. Right knee struck the second step; railing bent outward about 10 cm. Homeowner Mr. Alvarez said he salted at 06:30. Temperature -6 C. I rested 15 minutes in the van, then finished the route. No medical treatment. Told supervisor at 11:40. Ms. Chen, across the street, saw me fall. The steps were clearly neglected and the homeowner probably knew they were dangerous. Parcel for 47 Maple was left at the door and scanned."
Your supervisor asks for a one-paragraph narrative for the incident file and reminds you that the file may be read by the homeowner and by an insurer.
1. Write the narrative paragraph for the file. It must be factual, chronological, and free of speculation.
Read the worked answer
Model narrative:
"On 12 January at approximately 07:52, I was delivering a parcel to 47 Maple Street. I climbed the front steps and slipped on ice beneath a light covering of snow, falling onto the second step and striking my right knee. The handrail was bent outward by approximately 10 cm during the fall. I remained at the property for approximately 15 minutes, resting in the vehicle, and then continued the route. No medical treatment was sought that day. The homeowner, Mr. Alvarez, told me he had salted the steps at approximately 06:30. The temperature at the time was approximately -6 °C. Ms. Chen, of the house across the street, witnessed the fall. The parcel addressed to 47 Maple Street was left at the door and scanned before I left the property. I reported the incident to my supervisor at 11:40 the same day."
Why it is written this way:
- Approximate marks every time and measurement that came from memory or estimation, which protects the record's credibility.
- The salting statement is attributed ("Mr. Alvarez told me"), not asserted as fact. You did not verify it.
- The bent railing is described as an observed outcome, not an accusation about who caused it or how.
- The sequence is chronological, so a reader can reconstruct what happened without commentary.
- Nothing is included about the homeowner's knowledge or the condition of the steps beyond what was seen.
2. The draft sentence "The steps were clearly neglected and the homeowner probably knew they were dangerous" appears in the notes. Identify both problems and rewrite it.
Read the worked answer
Problem 1 - "clearly neglected" is a conclusion, not an observation. The notes contain no inspection, no maintenance history, and no comparison with other properties. "Neglected" is a judgement about the homeowner's conduct, and in an insurer's file it reads as an allegation the writer cannot support.
Problem 2 - "probably knew" is speculation about another person's state of mind. You cannot observe what someone knows. It also invites the obvious rebuttal: the homeowner said he salted at 06:30, which is evidence pointing the other way. A file that contains one speculative sentence invites a reader to discount the rest of it.
Rewrite: "Ice was present on the front steps beneath a light covering of snow. I did not observe salt or grit on the steps at the time of the fall. Mr. Alvarez later stated that he had salted the steps at approximately 06:30."
Why the rewrite works: it separates three different things - what was seen (ice, snow, no visible salt), what was not seen (no salt observed - carefully phrased, because you may simply have missed it), and what was said by whom. Each is defensible on its own.
The general rule: describe conditions and statements. Whether the steps were maintained to an acceptable standard is for someone with the authority and evidence to decide.
3. Fix the grammar and clarity problems in three note fragments: (i) "Slipped on front steps - ice under light snow." (ii) "railing bent outward about 10 cm." (iii) "Told supervisor at 11:40."
Read the worked answer
Fragment (i): "Slipped on front steps - ice under light snow." This is a sentence fragment with no subject, and the dash leaves the relationship between the two halves unclear (cause? coincidence?). Rewrite: "I slipped on the front steps. Ice was present beneath a light covering of snow."
Fragment (ii): "railing bent outward about 10 cm." Two faults: no subject, and no agent - a passive construction with the actor removed leaves it unclear whether the railing bent as you fell, was already bent, or was bent by something else. In an incident file that ambiguity matters. Rewrite: "The handrail bent outward by approximately 10 cm when I fell against it." If you are not certain you fell against it, the honest version is: "The handrail was bent outward by approximately 10 cm. I do not know whether the bend existed before the fall."
Fragment (iii): "Told supervisor at 11:40." Missing subject and object; the reader cannot tell who told whom, and it reads as casual shorthand rather than a record. Rewrite: "I reported the incident to my supervisor at 11:40 on 12 January."
What the three fixes have in common: every sentence in an incident file needs a subject, a clear action, and an identified person where a person acted. Where the actor is genuinely unknown, say so explicitly rather than deleting the actor and leaving a passive sentence to imply something vague.