RedactedNarrative: SYNOPSIS
  
  Vessel A was struck by Vessel B in a "rear end"-type collision, which resulted in a broken leg to the passenger aboard Vessel A.  
  
  NARRATIVE
  
  On September 27, 2021, I was notified of a PWC collision with injuries that had occurred on September 18 at Brantley Lake.  The report was made on September 24 by Vessel A Passenger in the form of a voicemail left on the Brantley Lake State Park answering machine.  I responded and discovered the following:
  
  Vessel A Statements:
  On September 18, 2021, Vessel A Operator was operating Vessel A on Brantley Lake.  Vessel A Passenger was a passenger aboard Vessel A.  The operator of a second PWC (Vessel B), Vessel B Operator, raised his fist indicating that he wishes to jump Vessel A's wake.  Vessel A Operator acceded and turned left; Vessel B Operator turned left.  Then Vessel B Operator suddenly turned into Vessel A and collided with Vessel A.  Vessel B Operator and Vessel A Passenger were both ejected.  Vessel A Passenger and Vessel A Operator suffered bruising on their right shoulders, torsos, and legs.  Vessel A Passenger also suffered a fractured right fibula.  Vessel A Passenger and Vessel A Operator were transported to shore by a passing pontoon boat and were treated at Artesia General Hospital for their injuries.  Vessel A Passenger and Vessel A Operator stated that they believe Vessel B Operator was drug-impaired due to having noticeably enlarged pupils and unusual behavior following the collision.  Vessel A Passenger and Vessel A Operator provided me witness contact information and photos of the damage to Vessel A, which is a hole crushed through the starboard quarter.  They stated that the vessel was purchased for $200 and is so severely damaged that it is not financially worth repairing.
  
  Witness 1 Statement:
  I identified Witness 1, who was verbally identified.  She stated she was aboard the pontoon boat at the time of the collision.  She did not witness the collision, but she assisted the injured boaters onto the pontoon boat and transported them to shore.  Witness 1 recognized Vessel B Operator as the PWC operator whom she'd seen splashing and getting too close to children swimming in the water near the beach earlier that afternoon.  She stated that Vessel B Operator looked physically dope-sick: head down, face washed out, eyes not present while people were yelling at him and not fully following what they were saying.  She heard Vessel B Operator vomiting and retching.  She obtained from Vessel B Operator his telephone number and vessel registration.
  
  Witness 2 Statement:
  I identified Witness 2, who did not provide her last name.  She stated that she had been aboard the pontoon boat with Witness 1 and she did not witness the collision.  However, she provided a description of its location, which was approximately halfway between Champion Bay and the state park east boat ramp.
  
  Vessel B Statement:
  Vessel B Operator stated that he was operating Vessel B during the collison.  He stated that he and three people whom he'd met earlier that morning had been playing with and chasing one other, doing donuts, and jumping wake on their PWCs.  Vessel B Operator turned Vessel B around at a speed of approximately 40 m.p.h., and while performing his turn collided with Vessel A before he could to react.  Vessel B Operator asserted that Vessel A had no business in that moment jumping in with his group, and especially not while riding tandem.  Vessel B Operator stated that he had waited for an hour ashore for law enforcement to arrive, including after the occupants of Vessel A had left for the ER, but he did not call because it was an accident and was not his fault.  Vessel B Operator repeated this sentiment throughout his interview and reminded me that no one died.  Vessel B Operator also stated that he began puking after the collision because he was famished.  Vessel B Operator stated that he did not use drugs or alcohol.  Vessel B Operator stated that he had splashed some children with his PWC before the collision, but only after getting the parents' permission to do so.  Vessel B Operator provided photos of the damage to Vessel B.
  
  Investigation:
  Based on operator statements and photos of the damages to Vessels A and B, I was able to reasonably conclude that Vessel B did strike Vessel A in a "rear-end"-type collision.  The port bow of Vessel B struck the starboard quarter of Vessel A.  The damage to Vessel A indicates an impact of great force which leads me to believe that Vessel B was traveling significantly faster than Vessel A.  The transom is a hard point that takes a significant impact to crush like it was.  The likely point of impact on Vessel B is on the port bow near the crack in the plastic bumper.  The deep cracks in the fiberglass on the port side of Vessel B indicate significant damage was caused behind the plastic bumper.  Over ride and post-collision movement of Vessel B was into the right leg of Vessel A Passenger, the passenger aboard Vessel A.
  
  I conclude that the operator of Vessel B is at fault for this collision due to reckless operation that endangered life or property.  Vessel B Operator appears to have operated at too high a speed in proximity to other boats, and for failing to pay sufficient attention to boats in his intended path.  He appears to have violated Speed, 18.17.2.11(C)(2) NMAC; and Distance, 18.17.2.15(G) NMAC.
  
  Forty-two photos and audio recordings are associated with this report.  End of report..