This is a typical report concerning a PWC on PWC collision:
I. Facts:
1. At 12:20 PM on Saturday August 31, two personal water craft (PWC’s) collided on Lake Wawasee, Kosciusko County. The operator of the 2002 Bombardier Sea-Doo which was struck was Db. The operator of the striking 2001 Bombardier Sea-Doo was Db’s cousin, Pb. Both operators are adults and medical doctors. Db indicated that his operating experience was over 500 hours; Pb indicated 100-500 hours.
2. Per the Indiana Boating Accident Report; “Both vessels were heading Northwest with vessel #2 approximately thirty (30) feet ahead of vessel #1 (distance estimated by Pb). Vessel #2 then turned to port and vessel #1 collided with vessel #2. The collision resulted in a complete and clean fracture of the left ankle of operator of vessel #2, along with head and scalp lacerations.”
3. In his deposition Db states that he and his cousin Pb had been operating their PWC’s on Johnson Bay and that at some point he (Db) drove to his sister’s boat anchored in the bay while his cousin drove toward his family’s dock on the bay. Pb confirms this in his deposition.
4. After conversing with his sister and others on the anchored boat, Db heads off in a North/northwesterly direction along the shoreline. Pb also departs his position between the family piers located the southeast of the anchored boat in an attempt to rejoin Db.
5. Db estimates that he was fifty to a hundred yards away from the boat, traveling 25 mph before he slowed and began his turn to the left. He states that he looked to his left then initiated a turn with an intended radius of eight feet. He believes he was 40 degrees into the turn when struck by Pb’s PWC.
6. Pb states in his deposition that he intended to go around the lake with Db, but did not make that known to Db. When Pb started out to catch up with Db he estimates that Db was 200-250 feet away but can not tell the exact distance. Pb went to full throttle to gain plane, then backed off the throttle, being 100-150 away from Db when he, Pb, gained plane. At this point Pb estimates his speed at 30-40 mph. Pb estimates that from the time he gained plane to the point of collision ten seconds elapsed. Pb believes he and Db were going in the same direction, but that he, Pb, was 10-15 feet away from Db’s course line.
7. Pb said that he saw Db do a hairpin turn 30 feet in front of him. Pb agrees that his reaction time would average 7/10ths of a second. Pb agrees that when he saw Db turn, he (Pb) did three things: (1) let off of the power; (2) tried to turn right; (3) yelled at Db. Pb indicates that all the foregoing as he tries to avoid the accident happen in seconds. Pb says that he saw the back of Db’s head prior to impact. Pb agrees that when you take your finger off the throttle it’s difficult to steer the PWC.
8. Pb states that he was told that he did a handstand over his own Sea-Doo. After landing in the water the first thing Pb remembers seeing is his Sea-Doo bouncing 10-15 feet away from him. Pb believes that his course changed 15-20 degrees before the collision.
9. Pb admits that if you take off power (finger off throttle) it’s harder to turn and takes a while.
II. Opinions:
1. The photos of the PWC’s involved indicate that Db’s craft was struck from a shallow but not right angle, per initial tears to the driver’s seat; combined with damage to the left side of the PWC console forward of the seat tears. Hence, per the damage to Db’s PWC the impact was not at a right angle but at approximately 40-45 degrees per his estimation of where he (Db) was in his turn when struck. Similarly, damage marks to Pb’s PWC are primarily to the bow and right side, thereby corroborating a collision on an angle off the starboard bow of his (Pb’s) PWC and not dead ahead.
2. In continuation of the striking pattern discussed in paragraph 1. above, note that after Pb hit the water he saw his craft 10-15 feet away. This would indicate that his craft struck Db’s PWC at an angle rather that directly head on, and continued off at an angle to the original course. Had the path of Pb’s craft been perpendicular to Db’s at impact, Pb and Db’s craft would have remained together or in very close proximity. That is not the impression given by Pb’s statement.
3. Db says he intended to turn in an eight foot radius (16 foot diameter). Pb describes Db’s turn as a “hairpin.” Db looks left, but does not see Pb before he (Db) turns. Pb states that he sees the back of Db’s head. Per the turning radius intended by Db and the approximate 45 degree angle attained by Db in his turn at impact, Pb had to be on a path approximately 4 feet to the left of Db’s course if they were on parallel tracks per Pb’s statement.
4. Pb states he is traveling at 30-40 mph or assuming an average of 35 mph, approximately 1.5 feet/sec times 35 or 52.5 fps. Pb agrees that his reaction time is approximately .7 seconds. Hence he should travel about .7 times 52.5 or approximately 37 feet in .7 seconds. Pb indicates that he attempts three tasks, e.g.: let off the throttle; turn; yell at Db. Pb indicates that the foregoing three tasks take seconds. It should therefore be proper to add each three task times for a total time of 2.1 seconds which translates into maximum of 2.1 times 52.5 feet if the speed is maintained or 110.5 feet. Since one of the three tasks is removing the driver’s power a more applicable distance might be the average between 37 feet when the power removal reaction was completed and the total distance for all three tasks at continued speed or 110 feet. This distance which involves slowing is approximately 110’-37’ divided by 2 plus 37’; or 73’/2 plus 36.5’ which equals 65 feet. Hence Pb had a distance between 65 to 110 feet before impact.
5. If Pb, who was approximately four feet to the left of Db’s track line, had not let off power he could easily have sufficient distance to steer slightly right and clearly missed Db.
6. As an experienced PWC operator with between 100 to 500 operating hours, Pb should have known not to remove power in order to turn.
7. If Pb was within four feet of Db’s track line, when Db looked left prior to turning, there is a high probability that Db would not have seen Pb.
8. Coast Guard boating accident statistics indicate 80-90 percent of all boating accidents are due to operator error. Of these accidents 80-90 percent are due to failure to maintain a proper lookout.
9. From the foregoing I believe that Pb was either distracted, not paying attention, or both as he overtook Db.
III. Conclusions:
1. Pb was responsible for the collision as he had sufficient time and knowledge to avoid the PWC ahead of him.
