The Kentucky Court of Appeals has held that juries may consider evidence that one party has less experience than the other party to apportion comparative fault for an accident. Although the decision arose from a collision between a fishing boat and a personal watercraft on a public lake, the court's ruling has important implications for the defense of commercial motor vehicle negligence cases. A young girl was operating her boyfriend's personal watercraft when it collided with a motorboat being operated by an older fisherman. The girl suffered serious injuries and filed a personal injury negligence suit against the fisherman. At trial, she testified that she had never before operated a personal watercraft on that lake or in choppy water. She also testified that she was nervous about the waves and could not look out for other boats while watching for waves. In contrast, the fisherman testified that he had more than 30 years of experience with boats and had operated that particular boat regularly for seven years. Before the trial, the girl's lawyer had asked the court to exclude any testimony about the difference in experience, arguing that it was irrelevant to the issue of negligence at a particular time and place. The trial court, and later the Court of Appeals, disagreed. In an opinion that is designated to be published, the Court of Appeals held that evidence of the two parties' difference in experience may help explain their actions at the time of the collision. Unless it is overturned by the Kentucky Supreme Court, the reasoning behind this decision can support an argument that a qualified and experienced professional truck driver is less likely to have been negligent than a novice amateur driver. Kelley v. Poore, --- S.W.3d ----, 2009 WL 4877707, Ky.App. 2008-CA-2409.