Title: David A. Parker Enterprises v. Templeton
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 951189
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 1996

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 short-
term 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.