Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500, 112 A.2d 475 (1955). Res ipsa loquitur does not apply.” Jensen, supra at 232. See also Harrison v. Bill Cairns Pontiac of Marlow Heights, Inc., 77 Md.App. 41, 549 A.2d 385 (1988). 7 . Md.Rule 5-702 provides, in pertinent part, that ... the court shall determine (1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony. 8 . The "admissibility of expert testimony is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court and its action will seldom constitute a ground for reversal.” Myers v. Celotex Corp., 88 Md.App. 442, 460, 594 A.2d 1248 (1991)(<HOLDING>). This is not a case like Myers, however, where
holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion but applied an incorrect standard holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion recognizing that different panels of the ninth circuit have applied an abuse of discretion standard and a de novo standard in reviewing district court remand decisions