On July 7/3/2023 at Approximately, 19:15 I, Officer 1, was contacted by KSP Post 15 stating a two-vessel hit and run had occurred in Lilly Creek. They contacted Sgt. 2 who advised them to let me work the complaint next date. On July 4, 2023, I made contact with V2 Operator, operator of vessel 2. He stated that last date he was in Lilly creek when he observed a jet ski occupied 3 times coming straight towards him. He slowed to approximately 25mph so he could see what direction the jet ski was going to go so he could react. He said they never changed direction and at that time he increased throttle and turned approximately 90 degrees to his right. The jet ski struck the port rear corner of his vessel throwing the 3 occupants of it into the water. V2 Operator stated, he then rendered aid to make sure everyone was okay. It was at that time a boat that was accompanying the jet ski pulled up and stated they were going to pull the jet ski to the ramp as it was taking on water. Vessel 1 stated they could exchange information there and take care of the matter. V2 Operator stated his boat got swamped from the collision and was having issues getting his boat immediately started, but he then got it back operable a short time later. By the time he made it to the ramp the occupants of vessel 1 weren’t there and had left the scene.  I went to V2 Operator’s residence where vessel 1 was located and took photographs and gathered the vessel’s information. V2 Operator was able to provide pictures of vessel 1 from the collision and I’m currently investigating the owners/operators of it. 
I was able to make contact with the other party involved in the collision. I made contact with Owner of Vessel 1. V1 Owner was not the operator at the time of the collision his son V1 Operator was operating the PWC with two other occupants. I got a statement from V1 Operator in which he states he was on the right side of the lake when he turned to wave at a boat passing by it was at that time Vessel 2 was coming around the bend. He states, he took a hard right turn but was unable to avoid vessel 2 and struck the rear portside with the PWC. He stated his PWC was taking on water and had to be towed back to their local dock where the PWC was docked at. He states, that V2 Operator was instructed to meet them back there but failed to show up. 

Damage Assessment
I spoke with V2 Operator he stated the owner of Vessel 2 has already had it repaired and the total cost was around 5,040 
V1 Owner stated he hadn’t got his PWC looked at and was unaware of the total cost to repair the hole in the bottom. 
Applicable Laws and Regulations
Code of Federal Regulations 
 
83.05 Look-out (Rule 5).
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
Vessel 1 failed to comply with this rule as both parties stated in their statements, there was another vessel that had the operator’s attention at the time and therefore was unable to see vessel 2 until it was too late to alter their course.
3.06 Safe speed (Rule 6).
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. 
Both vessel 1 and 2 failed to comply with this rule to be able to slow down and avoid collision
 
§ 83.14 Head-on situation (Rule 14).
Unless otherwise agreed, when two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.
 
Both parties failed to comply with this rule as vessel 1 was too close to running aground on a point sticking out from the shore line. Vessel 2 was also limited in their ability to go right due to another vessel traveling on the wrong side of the channel. 
 
 
Summation of findings:
After looking at both vessel’s damage and obtaining statements from both parties, it was evident that the operator of vessel 1 became distracted while waving at another boat and due to the speed and terrain was unable to see and maneuver out of the path of vessel 2. Due to vessel 2 having a boat on his starboard side an vessel 1 cutting the point he was unable to effectively maneuver his vessel out of the path of vessel 1.
LAKE CUMBERLAND
JAMESTOWN                     