On Wednesday July 12, 2023 I received a call from Operator1 about a property damage only, 2 vessel collision that had occurred the previous Saturday morning, July 9th at approximately 12:45 am. On Friday, July 14, I interviewed Operator1 and assessed the damage to his vessel and determined based on the damage that there had been a collision with another vessel. He had text messages sent and received from the operator of the other vessel, Operator2. 

According to Operator1 he was driving his Pheonix bass boat upstream from the dam toward the mouth of Mitchell Creek. He stated that he was traveling in the middle/right side of the main channel of the lake when he seen the lights of another boat headed straight toward him. That vessel was headed downstream towards the dam. Operator1 stated he seen all navigational lights on and proceeded to stay his course toward the mouth of Mitchell Creek. Noticing the other vessel was still headed straight toward him, he said he flashed his spotlight on his boat just in case the other vessel did not see him. Both boats continued to stay the same direction of travel. Operator1 stated that at the last possible second he completely came out of the throttle and steered to the right in an attempt to avoid collision. The other vessel struck his vessel and both came to a stop in the lake. Operator1 stated after a brief pause and having not have received nor contacted the other vessel, the other vessel drove away towards the dam. The damage to vessel 1 supports the claims Operator1 made of coming out of the throttle and steering to the right at the last second to avoid collision. 

The same afternoon of July 12, I also interviewed Operator2. Operator2 advised the same information as Operator1, with the only difference being that Operator2 stated that Vessel 1 was not in the middle of the channel, but riding close to the left side (headed upstream) of the channel. He stated that he seen all navigation lights of vessel 1 and that the spotlight shined at his boat temporarily reduced his vision. He stated that he stood his direction of travel, thinking the other boat would give way. He stated at the last second he turned to the right, while still in the throttle, in an attempt to avoid collision. The damage to vessel 2 supports Operator2''s statement. 

Due to the late reporting, slightly conflicting statements from each individual, and lack of supporting evidence, I cannot make a determination as to which operator was correct in their statements of the exact location of the accident and where each vessel was located in their directions of travel in the main channel. However, based off of both statements, this was a preventable boat accident. Both operators failed to make early and substantial action to avoid collision. When each operator noticed that they were on a course to have a collision and not knowing the intentions of the other vessel, both should have given way and reduced speed sooner to make a better determination as to how to avoid collision.

DALE HOLLOW RESERVOIR
CELINA                        