RedactedNarrative: On 4/5/15, two pwcs were being operated on the icw near cape carteret nc. Both pwcs are owned by the same person. Vessel 1 was being operated by operator1, son of owner, and seated behind the operator was owner. Vessel 2 was being operated by operator2, 13 year old minor. The other passengers on board vessel 2 were as follows: seated in the middle was a 12 yo minor, and on the back of the vessel was the only adult on board. The first part of the investigation took place at morehead general hospital. 
   
  Operator1 stated that he was operating the vessel and upon approaching the high rise bridge, his dad owner told operator1 to slow down and stop to let the oncoming traffic clear the bridge before proceeding underneath it. Operator1 stated that the next thing that he remembered was waking up in the water and that he did not see vessel 2 make contact with his vessel. Upon speaking with the nurses assisting the family, one stated that the passenger on the second vessel said that the vessel he was on, vessel 2 ran right into the back of vessel 1. 
   
  The second portion of the investigation was then conducted, in which the physical damage of the pwcs was documented. Vessel 1 had impact damage on the port side foot gunwale, damage to the port side of the rear seat structure, damage to the port side rear view mirror, and the steering column had substantial damage. After completing a survey of vessel 2, the impacting vessel, only one damaged area was observed. The starboard side of the hull on the bow portion had one damaged area that matched the size of the impact area on the foot gunwale on the port side of vessel 1. 
   
  The operator of vessel 1 sustained a broken left arm and the passenger of vessel 1 later passed due to injuries sustained from the impact, severe blunt force trauma. No one on vessel 2 was injured. After reviewing all physical damage to the pwcs and injuries sustained, it appears that after vessel 1 stopped and vessel 2 was following too closely, making them unable to see vessel 1 stop, or was unable to make vessel 2 stop in time to avoid a collision. The evidence shows that the starboard bow of vessel 2 made contact first with the port stern of vessel 1 and continued on through its passengers causing damage to the port side of vessel 1. During the following hours, days, and weeks of this investigation, the involved parties have avoided contact and have not filled out the mb4.1, owner/operator form. This report will be amended as further information is received.