On July 4th 2009 at around 5pm I was notified by TWRA dispatcher that a single PWC accident had occured with damage but no injuries.It was later determined that two PWC were involved with one operator sustaining a slight nose bleed after hitting the left side of his face on the water.The collision occured on Boone Lake in Sullivan County upstream from the Cross Anchor community at around 2pm. Both operators are juveniles and are identified as P1 (V1) and P2 (V2). Officers 1 and 2 arrived at the residence and started the investigation and interview of P1. P1 was operating a Yamaha waverunner that was registered and he has completed Boater Safety. He gave a written statement saying that he and V2 had been cruising the lake between their lake houses. V1 said that they had gone past the Cross Anchor community and he had stopped approximately 50 feet from the shore on the right of the channel below point 10. He saw V2 operating approximately 300 feet below him and then started looking at the cows in the fields. He then said that he looked to his left and saw V2 coming at him and shut his eyes and braced for the impact. He opened his eyes after the impact and saw V2 strike his face on the PWC before falling into the water. He then yelled to V2 to get on his PWC and head to his house before the PWC sank. They arrived at dock and were met by V1 parents who saw the damage and told V2 to get home before the PWC sank. They then called TWRA to report the accident. I then went to the lake house with officer 1 to interview v2 operator.We arrived and found that the PWC had been trailered and parked at the house.I looked at the damage to V2 and saw that he had a puncture on the left side below the rub rail at the bow and realized that it couldnt match the damage to V1. I then interviewed P2 who had been operating a Yamaha waverunner that was not registered and he has not completed Boater Safety. He gave a written statement with a similar scenario except that he said V1 was 75 feet in front of him and made a sharp left turn in which he could not avoid colliding with the left bow of V1. We then left the  residence and continued our patrol shift. I reviewed the photos and realized that the damage to V1 ran from bow to stern and that the damage to V2 ran from bow to stern so their scenarios did not match the damage. I reinterviewed P2 and had him manauver two toy PWCs to show me how the collision occured and he collided them the same way that he said in his statement. I then told him that the damage did not fit the statement and asked him to explain how the damage got on his PWC and he could not. I then reinterviewed v1 operator and he gave me the same manauver as in his statement. I then told him that his statement did not match the damage and he came up with a manauver in which the damage more closely fit. He said that V2 could have come toward him from the left but turned sharply to the right and collided with his left side. He said that just before the impact he felt a spray of water on his face.He said that earlier in the day V2 had been splashing him and could have been trying to do it again when he was hit. It appears that the damage to V1 and V2 came from colliding with each others left side. It appears that the operator of V1 was drifting or sitting still when the collision occured and that V2 was cruising but turning right and slowing down before colliding with V1. The operator of V1 is the stand on vessel and all others must avoid him and V2 was the give way and must yield. It appears that V2 violated TCA 69-9-504 reckless operation of a PWC by not giving way to V1 and possibly trying to splash V1. The operator of V2 has not completed Boater Safety a violation of  TCA 69-9-226 and did not have the PWC registered violation of TCA 69-9-207.These are preliminary charges and are subject to the Sullivan County DAs office recomendations and further investigatio
PINEY FLATS                   