Present: All the Justices 

DAVID A. PARKER ENTERPRISES, INC. 

OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR. 

v. Record No. 951189 

 March 1, 1996 

JACK WAYNE TEMPLETON, SR. 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Jerome B. Friedman, Judge 

 The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether certain 

opinion testimony of expert witnesses invaded the province of the 

jury. 

 Jack Wayne Templeton, Sr., sued David A. Parker Enterprises, 

Inc. (Parker), seeking damages for injuries sustained in a 

boating accident and allegedly caused by the negligence of a 

Parker employee. Parker denied that its employee was negligent. 

 Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of 

Templeton in the amount of $11,000. The trial court denied 

Parker's motion to set aside the verdict and entered judgment on 

the verdict. Parker appeals. 

 Parker is in the business of renting "jet skis" for shortterm use. On July 25, 1993, Templeton rented a jet ski from 

Parker at Virginia Beach. Thereafter, Templeton and other 

patrons were transported from the oceanfront to deeper water in a 

25-foot boat owned by Parker and operated by its employee, 

Michael R. Benzel. The boat was equipped with a 200-horsepower, 

 outboard motor, and Parker used the boat to supervise and to 

assist its patrons while skiing. 

 After the boat reached its destination, Templeton began 

operating the jet ski. While riding it, Templeton lost his 
- 2 - 

balance and fell into the ocean. When Templeton was unable to 

get back onto the jet ski, Benzel maneuvered the boat toward him 

in an effort to assist him. While Benzel was rendering 

assistance, Templeton was injured by the boat's propeller. 

 At trial, Templeton testified that the propeller was 

rotating when it struck him, implying the engine was in gear. 

Benzel testified, however, that the boat was drifting and that 

the boat's engine was in neutral and not in gear when the boat 

was close to Templeton. 

 Templeton offered expert medical testimony of two physicians 

who had treated him for his injuries. Dr. James O. Carleo, a 

specialist in emergency medicine, saw Templeton in the emergency 

room of the Virginia Beach General Hospital shortly after the 

accident. Dr. Arthur W. Wardell, an orthopedic surgeon, examined 

Templeton on August 4, 1993. Both doctors described Templeton's 

injuries, consisting primarily of four lacerations on Templeton's 

left thigh and two lacerations on his right knee. Dr. Wardell 

described the wounds as a "slice type injury." Over Parker's 

objection, the trial court permitted Dr. Carleo to opine that 

Templeton's wounds were caused by "a rotating prop[eller]" and 

Dr. Wardell to opine that Templeton's injuries were caused by "a 

propeller [that was] in motion." This testimony supported 

Templeton's theory that Benzel was negligent in maneuvering the 

boat close to Templeton while the boat's engine was in gear. 

 Parker contends that the trial court erred in permitting 
- 3 - 

Templeton's doctors to testify that, based on the lacerations 

they observed on Templeton's legs, the boat's propeller was 

rotating at the time of the accident. Parker asserts that the 

testimony invaded the province of the jury on the principal issue 

in the case; that is, whether the boat's propeller was rotating 

in gear at the time of the accident. Templeton, on the other 

hand, contends that the doctors' opinions were admissible because 

they assisted the jury in determining whether the propeller was 

rotating in gear when he was injured. 

 An expert's opinion is admissible in evidence if it will 

assist the fact finder about a matter that is not within the 

range of common knowledge. Lyle, Siegel v. Tidewater Capital 

Corp., 249 Va. 426, 436, 457 S.E.2d 28, 34 (1995). An expert's 

opinion is inadmissible, however, if it relates to matters about 

which the fact finder is equally as capable as the expert of 

reaching an intelligent and informed opinion. Kendrick v. Vaz, 

Inc., 244 Va. 380, 384, 421 S.E.2d 447, 449 (1992); Grasty v. 

Tanner, 206 Va. 723, 726, 146 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1966). 

 In the present case, it was appropriate for the doctors to 

testify that Templeton's wounds were inflicted by a sharp object 

because evidence about the type of injuries Templeton sustained 

was relevant and probative. However, the evidence was in sharp 

conflict about whether the propeller was rotating in gear when 

Templeton was injured, and the doctors' opinion that the boat's 

propeller was so rotating clearly invaded the province of the 
- 4 - 

jury on this vital issue because the jury was equally as capable 

as were the doctors of reaching an intelligent and informed 

opinion and of drawing its own conclusion from the facts and 

circumstances of the case. Moreover, the testimony was highly 

prejudicial. 

 We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in allowing 

the doctors to opine whether the propeller was rotating in gear 

when Templeton was injured. Accordingly, we will reverse the 

trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial 

consistent with this opinion. 

Reversed and remanded. 

JUSTICE KEENAN, with whom JUSTICE LACY joins, dissenting. 

 I dissent and would affirm the trial court's judgment. The 

testimony of Dr. Wardell and Dr. Carleo was not within the range 

of common knowledge, did not invade the province of the jury, and 

was admissible evidence under Code § 8.01-401.3(B). 

 Expert testimony is admissible if it will aid the trier of 

fact in understanding a subject that is outside the scope of 

common knowledge. Lyle, Siegel, 249 Va. at 436, 457 S.E.2d at 

34. Such testimony may be used to assist the fact finder in 

understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. 

Code § 8.01-401.3(A). 

 Here, Dr. Wardell testified that Templeton's injuries were 

"slice type" injuries. Dr. Carleo testified that the wounds on 

Templeton's knee were parallel, narrow, clean, and deep. He 
- 5 - 

stated that the wounds had an "arcus" shape, consisting of 

initially shallow cuts, then deeper cuts, followed by more 

shallow cuts. Both physicians testified that, due to the spacing 

and nature of lacerations on Templeton's legs, the wounds were 

caused by a moving propeller. In addition to their examination 

of Templeton's wounds, these physicians based their conclusions 

on their previous experience in treating lacerations, including 

some lacerations caused by propellers. This testimony falls 

outside the range of common knowledge. 

 These expert opinions were admissible under Code 

§ 8.01-401.3(B), which provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o 

expert . . . witness while testifying in a civil proceeding shall 

be prohibited from expressing an otherwise admissible opinion or 

conclusion as to a matter of fact solely because that fact is the 

ultimate issue or critical to the resolution of the case." Thus, 

although the question whether the propeller was in motion and the 

engine was in gear was the ultimate factual issue to be decided 

in this negligence action, the physicians' testimony that 

Templeton's wounds were caused by a moving propeller was 

admissible under this provision.