Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘accident’ occupies a contested theoretical space that ranges far beyond its colloquial meaning of mere chance occurrence. The most consequential intervention comes from Jung, who argues that a very large number of accidents are of psychic causation, prepared by unconscious processes operating over weeks or months — a position that effectively dissolves the boundary between the involuntary and the motivated. Hillman, by contrast, resists this dissolution: he insists on retaining accident as an authentic category of existence, irreducible to fatalism, teleological finalism, or heroic integration, while simultaneously demonstrating how the daimon or acorn-pattern can make use of haphazard occasions. Von Franz approaches the problem from the synchronicity angle, noting that for ‘primitive’ consciousness no such thing as a meaningless accident exists, whereas modernity evaluates external events as purely causal. The trauma literature — Levine, Ogden, Herman, Kalsched, Janet — treats accident primarily as a precipitating cause of traumatic neurosis, examining motor vehicle collisions, falls, and workplace injuries as paradigmatic triggers for dissociation, somatic freezing, and structural personality alteration. Abraham adds a psychoanalytic wrinkle, demonstrating how the unconscious may actively seek a second accident to reinforce an existing symptom complex. Bowlby links accident to pathological mourning and unconscious commemoration. The term thus serves as a nodal point where questions of causality, meaning, fate, somatic response, and therapeutic reparation converge.