Title: Mulholland v. DEC Int'l. Corp.

State: michigan

Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court

Document:

Decided June 6, 1989. Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey (by Edward R. Post) for the plaintiffs. Bremer, Wade, Nelson & Alt (by William M. Bremer and Phillip J. Nelson) for defendant DEC International Corporation. Mika, Meyers, Beckett & Jones (by Douglas A. Donnell) for defendant Crawford. BOYLE, J. Two issues are raised in the plaintiffs' *398 appeal from the directed verdict in their product liability action. The first is whether the trial court erred by ruling that plaintiffs' expert, Sidney Beale, was not qualified to give an expert opinion as to the cause of mastitis in the plaintiffs' herd of dairy cows. The second issue is whether the plaintiffs' proofs were sufficient to survive the motion for a directed verdict, with or without Beale's testimony as to the cause of mastitis in the Mulholland herd. We have concluded that both questions must be answered in the affirmative and that this matter must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. I FACTS The plaintiffs, Robert and Betty Mulholland, operated a dairy farm in Montcalm County for many years. The Mulholland operation was small. About fifty to fifty-five cows were milked in an old barn. Feed was raised on 140 acres of the farm. In 1979, the Mulhollands reached an agreement in which two of their sons, Richard and Randy, would return to the farm and the dairy operation would be enlarged to support the three families. According to the plan, the dairy herd would be expanded to two hundred cows by September of 1982. A new barn was also to be built, including a new milking parlor. Finally, a new milking system was to be installed in the barn. The barn was completed and the new milking system installed in March, 1980. The equipment for the milking system was supplied by defendant DEC International Corporation and installed by defendant Tom Nelson Crawford, doing business as Tommy's Refrigeration Service. *399 By the time the new barn and milking equipment were operational, the Mulholland herd was already up to seventy-one cows. Additional cows were added to the herd in April and October, 1980, as well as March, 1981. Most, if not all, of the additional cows were purchased from other farms. Sometime after March, 1980, the Mulhollands observed that their cows were not "milking out." The cows appeared to be uncomfortable and "steppy" or nervous around the milking parlor. On June 1, 1980, the Mulhollands went from two to three milkings each day in an attempt to get the cows to milk out. About that time, they noticed sores beginning to develop on the teat ends of the cows. Increased mastitis, an infection and inflammation of the udder, also was noticed. On July 21, the Mulhollands returned to two milkings each day, but sores continued to develop on the cows' teat ends and mastitis continued to grow in the herd. The milk from infected cows could not be sold. George Stuewer, a doctor of veterinary medicine, began working with the Mulholland herd after the new, expanded operation began. Dr. Stuewer treated the more acute cases of mastitis, while the Mulhollands themselves treated the milder cases. Dr. Stuewer noted the scabs on the teat ends of the cows, as well as the "pinched" look of the teat ends after the milking cups were removed. He was aware that this condition was associated with milking machine problems. While watching a milking, Dr. Stuewer also observed that the milk was "thrashing" in the machinery, rather than developing a smooth flow. Dr. Stuewer did not profess to be an expert on milking machines. He therefore suggested the Mulhollands consult with Sidney Beale. Dr. Stuewer had previously spoken *400 with Beale and was impressed with Beale's knowledge of milking machinery. Sidney Beale was not a veterinarian, but did have a B.A. degree in agriculture with an emphasis in dairy science. Beale began working with milking machines in 1950 and had been employed as a consultant for about ten years. When he arrived at the Mulholland farm in November, 1980, Beale first observed a complete milking of the herd. He too noticed the sore teat ends, mastitis, the fact that the cows were not milking out, and that the milk was thrashing in the milk lines. Beale ruled out other problems in the milking parlor and then concluded that these problems were related to the configuration of the milking machinery. Specifically, Beale concluded that the use of a header in the vacuum lines was causing the thrashing in the lines, thereby pinching the teat ends and preventing the cows from being milked out. Beale did not examine other aspects of the Mulholland operation, but did prescribe changes in the configuration of the machinery which would allow for removal of the header. The changes prescribed by Beale were implemented by Tommy's Refrigeration Service in December, 1980. Afterwards, Beale, Dr. Stuewer, and the Mulhollands all noted a decrease in mastitis and an increase in milk production in the herd. The Mulhollands filed suit in February, 1981, alleging a breach of warranty, negligence in the design and manufacture of the milking machinery, and a failure to warn. Extensive discovery followed, and trial commenced on April 16, 1985. In the course of Beale's testimony, counsel for the plaintiff sought to establish a foundation for the witness' testimony as to the cause of mastitis in the Mulholland herd. After a lengthy voir dire, the *401 trial court ruled that Beale was not qualified to give such an opinion because he was not a licensed veterinarian. No further proofs were offered by the plaintiffs and the defense counsel brought a motion for a directed verdict. Defense counsel argued that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case in that they had produced no evidence that the milking machinery had caused either an increase in mastitis or the consequential decrease in milk production. The trial court agreed and entered an order of directed verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that Beale lacked the necessary qualifications to express his opinion as to the cause of mastitis in the Mulholland herd. Alternatively, the plaintiffs argued that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of the cause of mastitis to create an issue of fact for the jury. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion dated August 5, 1987, disagreed, affirming the trial court's decision. We granted leave to appeal on both issues in an order dated March 22, 1988. 430 Mich 857 (1988). II THE EXPERT TESTIMONY A. THE QUALIFICATIONS OF SIDNEY BEALE The Michigan Rules of Evidence provide: If the court determines that recognized scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, *402 or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. [MRE 702.][[1]] It is a long-established principle of Michigan law that the qualification of an expert to render an opinion is a matter which rests in the discretion of the trial court. Appellate courts will interfere with a trial court's ruling in this regard only to correct an abuse of discretion. People v Gambrell, 429 Mich 401, 407; 415 NW2d 202 (1987). Wigmore notes and endorses the abuse of discretion review standard over trial court rulings as to the qualifications of experts. 2 Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn rev), § 561, pp 756-759. According to Wigmore, three considerations underlie the restrictive review standard in these matters. First, a determination of the expert's qualifications in light of the proposed testimony often involves complicated factual reviews. Second, cross-examination of the expert is an "ample and sure safeguard." Third, the matter of qualifications is considered to be too trifling to warrant appellate review. The trial court's ruling in this case touched upon a number of general concerns regarding the qualification of experts, but ultimately came to rest upon the matter of licensing. As the trial court explained: *403 From the testimony here, from Dr. Stuewer's testimony and from the other testimony, and I think from the Court's knowledge of these areas from the law it can be said that the determination of the cause of mastitis is one which should require the basic expertise possessed by a licensed practitioner, in other words, a veterinarian. * * * This is a rambling discussion, but I want the record to be clear on my basis for the ruling. It is the Court's view that in this circumstance, while Mr. Beale may possess great amounts of practical experience in this area, his answers here first of all satisfy me that he has not had the academic or the testing procedures that the Court feels are necessary for a person to hold himself out as an expert who can determine the cause of a medical condition in an animal. We believe that the trial court abused its discretion in so ruling. MRE 702 expressly provides that an expert may be qualified by virtue of his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. It does not refer to licensing as a method of qualification, much less as a requisite for the qualification of an expert. We do not believe that this omission was inadvertent. At best, a license is evidence of qualifications and thereby a useful shorthand in day-to-day commerce. Except in the most narrow legal sense,[2] a license is not a qualification in itself. Even its *404 value as evidence of qualifications is diminished in the courtroom where the expert is available and there is time for careful interrogation by both parties. It is perhaps tempting to equate the word "expert" with the notion of a licensed professional. However, there is no basis for doing so in the text of MRE 702. Even the generic word "expert" may be misleading, since this is not a qualification in itself, but merely the conclusion that the particular witness is qualified to give opinion testimony. As Wigmore explains: [I]t is misleading to think of some witnesses as experts and others as non-experts. In a strict sense, every witness whosoever is an expert. In other words, the very fact that he is allowed to speak at all assumes that he is fitted to acquire knowledge on the subject; though in the vast majority of matters no demonstration of his fitness is needed. It is common and not unnatural to confine the term "experts" to witnesses whose fitness, by reason of the subject-matter, needs to be first shown. But while there is (as will be seen), a practical distinction between the instances in which the fitness must be expressly shown and the instances in which it need not be, that is no reason for ignoring the fundamental principle that every witness whosoever is and must be, by hypothesis, fitted or "expert" in the matter about which he is allowed to give his supposed knowledge. In particular, it is a mistake to suppose that an "expert" must be a person professionally occupied upon the matter to be testified to. This is a mistake having its special origin in the doctrine of Opinion evidence, and can there better be considered (post, § 1923). It is sufficient here to note that the only requirement is that the witness must be *405 fitted to acquire knowledge on the matter he speaks about; and, if he is thus fitted, that it is entirely immaterial whether he acquired his fitness by being professionally concerned in such matters. [2 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed), § 555, pp 634-635. Emphasis in original.][[3]] As Wigmore further explains, licensing generally is not required for expert medical testimony, nor should it be required: The common law, it may be added, does not require that the expert witness on a medical subject shall be a person duly licensed to practice medicine; but in some jurisdictions this requirement has been introduced by statute. Except as an indirect stimulus to obtain a license, such a rule is ill-advised, first, because the line between chemistry, biology, and medicine is too indefinite to admit of a practicable separation of topics and witnesses; and, second, because some of the most capable investigators have probably not needed or cared to obtain a license to practice medicine. [2 Wigmore (Chadbourn rev), § 569, pp 789-790. Citations deleted, emphasis in original.][[4]] *406 Michigan has long embraced the more practical view of expert testimony. In Evans v People, 12 Mich 27, 37-38 (1863), it was explained: Circumstances may make whole communities familiar with diseases not generally known elsewhere, and reasonably competent to manage ordinary cases of such diseases, and to recognize their symptoms. Such is often the case from necessity in new countries; and the same necessity leads to a more general knowledge of the extent to which a neighborhood has suffered from any prevailing sickness than is usual in populous towns. And it often happens that some persons having no general skill become very familiar with particular subjects. It would be very unwise to exclude such evidence, merely because the range of the witness's knowledge is limited. There are as many grades of knowledge and ignorance in the professions as out of them. The only safe rule in any of these cases is, to ascertain the extent of the witness's qualifications, and, within their range, to permit him to speak. Cross-examination, and the testimony of others, will here, as in all other cases, furnish the best means of testing his value. We continue to believe that the only safe rule is to ascertain with some specificity the range of the witness' qualifications and to permit testimony within that range. As we have outlined above, Sidney Beale has a B.A. degree in agriculture with an emphasis in dairy science and has been working with milking machines and mastitis since 1950. Beale's education in this regard is informal. He explained that there was very little literature on mastitis "in the early years." Beale testified that there is a lot of literature now, although some of it is factual and some is questionable. Despite what appears to be *407 an inevitable lack of formal training in the area, Beale's studies and experience are extensive. From 1950 until 1955, Beale worked at Kraft Foods. Beale was assigned to quality control work with dairy farmers. The "big problem," as Beale explained, was mastitis, and milking machines were thought to be involved in this problem. Beale consequently ran experiments with various milking machines in an attempt to reduce the incidence of mastitis in herds supplying milk to Kraft. For the next twenty-five years, Beale worked for the Michigan Milk Producers Association. Nearly all of that time, Beale was involved in the production and marketing of milk. He supervised the laboratory and quality control program. During ten of the last thirteen years with the MMPA, Beale also worked on the Milking Management Assistance program with a veterinarian from Michigan State University, Dr. Louis Newman. The program was designed to study the effects of milking machines on the incidence of mastitis in dairy herds. As Beale described the program, he worked with the milking machines from the layman's side, while Dr. Newman worked with cows from the professional side. Together, they gained a lot of "input" as to the role of milking machines in the creation of mastitis in dairy herds. In addition to this employment, Beale has conducted numerous seminars on milking machinery and mastitis. Indeed, it was at one such seminar that Dr. Newman informally proposed their research project. Beale also has published at least one paper in the area and was a regular columnist in Hoarde's Dairymen. Beale is a member of the International Milk and Food Environmental Sanitarian Association and the National Mastitis Council. Since 1978, Beale has been self-employed as a *408 milking-management consultant. He has worked with farmers in fourteen states and two provinces of Canada. Beale estimated that he consults with about fifty farmers each year in that capacity. Over his total career, however, Beale has inspected milking operations on some 15,000 farms. After carefully reviewing the record, we are satisfied that Beale was not simply a well-qualified expert, but perhaps the expert in this particular junction of science and industry.[5] Indeed, we find it ironic that Dr. Stuewer's testimony was cited in support of the trial court's ruling, since it was this licensed veterinarian who suggested that the Mulhollands consult Beale. Certainly at that time, Dr. Stuewer was impressed with Beale's knowledge in this area, and there is no indication that his opinion had changed by the time of the trial. Beale was frank in his admission that he was not an expert on animal diseases in general. He was not, however, called upon for such testimony. Indeed, the fact that there was mastitis in the Mulholland herd was not disputed.[6] Nor was Beale *409 called upon to diagnose mastitis, although there was ample testimony in the record that mastitis is such a common disease of dairy herds that farmers themselves not only diagnose it, but also treat it with antibiotics. Beale was simply called upon to give an opinion as to the relationship between a particular milking machine defect and the most common of dairy herd diseases.[7] We find a striking parallel between this case and Wolscheid v Thome, 76 Mich 265; 43 NW 12 (1889). In Wolscheid, the plaintiff brought suit under a theory of breach of contract for the failure of the defendant to provide adequate care for sheep entrusted to his care. Two witnesses, Eldridge and Caruss, testified as to the adequacy of the defendant's care after examining the conditions at the defendant's farm. The Court explained: It was proper for them to go there and examine the lay of the land, and the character of the soil, and as experts, if they were shown to be such, and they undoubtedly were, being farmers and extensive growers of sheep, to give their opinion as to whether or not it was a proper place to keep sheep in the winter-time; but it was not competent for them to state as to the condition of the sheds inside, unless it was shown, as it was not, that the condition was the same when the sheep were kept there, and then to state that, as they saw it, it was not a fit place to keep sheep in. [Wolscheid, supra, p 271.] *410 Can it be said that Eldridge and Caruss might have given their opinion as to the adequacy of the conditions at the Thome farm, but not been allowed to give an opinion as to likely effects of inadequate conditions? We think not.[8] Much has changed since the mid-nineteenth century. The proliferation of academic degrees and increasing specialization of labor is evident for all to see. Nevertheless, we believe that there is a world of wisdom apart from college campuses and urban high-rises. Now, as then, there is much to be gained from the practical student of the common arts. Beale exemplifies that wisdom. Beyond a doubt, his testimony would have assisted the trier of fact in deciding the cause of mastitis in the Mulholland herd. *411 We conclude that a review of the trial court's discretion is warranted in this instance. First, the error of the trial court is one of law, not dependent upon the complex facts of record. Second, because the expert was not qualified by the trial court, there was no cross-examination, nor was there competing expert testimony to safeguard against error. Third, quite obviously, we believe that the error was of significant magnitude, both in the context of this case and Michigan jurisprudence in general, to warrant review. Having reviewed the record and having found no basis in law or fact for the trial court's ruling, we can only conclude that it constituted an abuse of discretion.[9] B. THE EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION FOR BEALE'S TESTIMONY In addition to qualification of the witness, there must be facts in evidence to support the opinion testimony of an expert. O'Dowd v Linehan, 385 Mich 491, 509-510; 189 NW2d 333 (1971). The defendants alternatively argue that, even if the trial court had qualified Beale as an expert as to the cause of mastitis in the Mulholland herd, it would nevertheless have had to exclude Beale's testimony because it was based upon inadequate factual data.[10] The Michigan Rules of Evidence provide in relevant part: *412 The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. The court may require that underlying facts or data essential to an opinion or inference be in evidence. [MRE 703.][[11]] Here, the defendants argue that there was an insufficient factual basis for Beale's opinion because neither Beale's own perceptions nor facts made known to him at or before the hearing would allow Beale to rule out the other potential causes of mastitis in the Mulholland herd. Implicit in the defendants' argument is the premise that ruling out the other potential causes was essential to Beale's conclusion. It is undisputed that the immediate "cause" of mastitis is a bacterial infection of the udder. On the other hand, as Beale testified, the intermediate "cause" may be many different things with which a cow's teats come in contact. Beale explained that to know fully how any particular cow contracted mastitis, it would be necessary to eliminate a number of these potential causes. However, Beale further explained that a milking machine may mediately "cause" mastitis by damaging the teat ends, thereby making the cow more susceptible to bacterial infection upon contact. Plaintiffs' theory clearly and properly rested upon this mediate "cause" of mastitis in the Mulholland herd.[12] *413 Beale's own perceptions at the Mulholland farm provided an ample basis for the conclusion that a defective milking machine caused the mastitis in the plaintiffs' herd by making the cows more susceptible to infection. As we have noted, Beale observed a complete milking of the Mulholland herd on his first visit to the farm. He noticed that a number of the cows had sore teat ends and mastitis. Beale also inspected the milking machinery in particular.[13] It is, of course possible, as the defendants suggested throughout the trial, that the true or more immediate cause of the mastitis was improper bedding, unsanitary stalls, or even mud in the barnyard. Neither Beale's own perceptions nor those made known to him at or before trial would allow this expert to rule out these possibilities. Nevertheless, we do not find the greater wisdom in a rule which would require an evidentiary basis of this sort. To the extent that they are credible, the absence of an evidentiary basis upon which an expert may rule out other potential causes may reduce the credibility of the expert.[14] To the extent *414 that other potential causes are substantiated by the evidence of record, they may also support a verdict of comparative negligence.[15] However, to require for each expert an evidentiary basis sufficient to negate all of the possible causes which might be asserted by opposing counsel would virtually eliminate expert testimony.[16] We require only expertise of experts, not omniscience. In our view, it is sufficient if the expert has an evidentiary basis for his own conclusions. See, generally, 7 Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn rev), § 1922, pp 26-29. Here, the expert provided an ample basis in his own perceptions for his testimony as to the cause of mastitis in the Mulholland herd. We do not find a lack of evidentiary basis to be an adequate alternative ground upon which to uphold the ruling of the trial court. See Danielski v Lukomski, 204 Mich 304; 169 NW 887 (1918). Cf. Roberts v Young, 369 Mich 133, 137; 119 NW2d 627 (1963). *415 III THE DIRECTED VERDICT MOTION The trial court granted the defendants' motion for a directed verdict, reasoning that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a causal relationship between the milking system and the increase in mastitis in their herd. It is, of course, well established in Michigan law that a prima facie case for product liability, under either a negligence or warranty theory, requires proof of a causal relationship between the defect and the damage of which the plaintiffs complain. Piercefield v Remington Arms Co, Inc, 375 Mich 85, 98-99; 133 NW2d 129 (1965); Caldwell v Fox, 394 Mich 401, 410; 231 NW2d 46 (1975); Kupkowski v Avis Ford, Inc, 395 Mich 155, 161; 235 NW2d 324 (1975); Holloway v General Motors Corp (On Rehearing), 403 Mich 614, 622; 271 NW2d 777 (1978). However, as we held in Holloway, p 622: On a motion for directed verdict, the question is whether it is reasonable to infer from the evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the accident was probably caused by a defect attributable to the manufacturer. Questions of comparative probability are to be resolved by the trier of fact. A plaintiff in a product liability action need not offer evidence which positively excludes every other possible cause. It is enough that the plaintiff establishes a logical sequence of cause and effect, notwithstanding the existence of other plausible theories, although other plausible theories may also have evidentiary support. Id., p 623. In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a defendant's motion for a directed verdict, we examine the testimony and all legitimate inferences that may *416 be drawn in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Matras v Amoco Oil Co, 424 Mich 675, 681; 385 NW2d 586 (1986). Here, the testimony of Sidney Beale would have established a logical sequence of cause and effect between the alleged defect in the DEC system and the increase of mastitis in the Mulholland herd.[17] We are aware of the defendants' theories that the increase of mastitis was caused by the rapid introduction of new cows into the herd, the use of lime bedding, unsanitary stalls, and mud in the barnyard. Indeed, the plaintiffs' proofs themselves provide some evidentiary basis for these theories. However, viewing the evidence, particularly the voir dire testimony of Beale, most favorably toward the plaintiffs, we can only conclude that a sufficient causal relationship between the DEC system and the increase of mastitis would have been proven.[18] We therefore conclude that the trial *417 court further erred in directing a verdict for the defendants.[19] IV CONCLUSION The judgments of the circuit court and the Court of Appeals are reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction. LEVIN, CAVANAGH, and ARCHER, JJ., concurred with BOYLE, J. GRIFFIN, J. (dissenting). The majority concludes that the trial court erred in ruling that witness Sidney Beale was not qualified to give an expert opinion as to the cause of mastitis in plaintiffs' cows. I respectfully dissent. The decision to qualify a witness as an expert is a matter for the discretion of the trial court, and its decision is not to be reversed absent abuse of discretion. Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich 576, 591; 248 NW2d 171 (1976); McEwen v Bigelow, 40 Mich 215, 217 (1879). In this case, Beale, a milking-management consultant, was called by plaintiffs as a witness and asked questions concerning his extensive experience *418 with milking machines. Beale's expertise relating to the design and functioning of milking machines was well documented and is not disputed. However, upon voir dire Beale conceded that he was not an expert on the medical causes of mastitis.[1] Further, he admitted that he had received very limited formal education relating to mastitis, and that he had little practical experience or specialized training per se in connection with that disease.[2] He also admitted that he was not an expert on cows' teat-end lesions.[3] There was no challenge to the claim by Beale that he was an expert in the design of milking machine systems. However, after reviewing the *419 limits of Beale's education and experience and focusing upon the fact he was not a licensed veterinarian, the judge ruled that Beale "has not had the academic or the testing procedures that the Court feels are necessary for a person to hold himself out as an expert who can determine the cause of a medical condition in an animal." Particularly in light of Beale's admissions, I cannot agree with the majority that the trial court abused its discretion. On these facts, we are not required to reach the question whether one must be a veterinarian to give expert testimony concerning the diagnoses and causes of animal diseases. However, under these circumstances, certainly it was not inappropriate for the trial judge to consider that Beale lacked the credentials of a licensed veterinarian. As the judge explained, the state has established minimum standards of qualification to practice certain of the professions. Surely, a judge is not to be faulted for taking those standards into account. A dental assistant with twenty years of experience in a dentist's office might well absorb an extraordinary practical education in the field of dentistry. It is possible that one judge would find the assistant competent to testify as an expert in that field. However, it is also possible that a different judge could reach the contrary conclusion, and in so doing he might ascribe weight to the facts that the assistant lacked the formal education of a dentist and was not licensed to practice that profession. I would be hard pressed to say that either judge abused his discretion. In the past we have frequently cautioned appellate courts against a substitution of judgment as to matters that clearly fall within the discretion of the trial court. For example, in the early case of *420 Scripps v Reilly, 35 Mich 372, 387 (1877), this Court stated: It can never be intended that a trial judge has purposely gone astray in dealing with matters within the category of discretionary proceedings, and unless it turns out that he has not merely misstepped, but has departed widely and injuriously, an appellate court will not re-examine. It will not do it when there is no better reason than its own opinion that the course actually taken was not as wise or sensible or orderly as another would have been. [Emphasis supplied.] In Detroit Tug & Wrecking Co v Gartner, 75 Mich 360, 361; 42 NW 968 (1889), the Court said: To warrant this Court in interfering in matters so entirely in the sound discretion of the circuit court as the granting or refusing of a new trial, the abuse of discretion ought to be so plain that, upon consideration of the facts upon which the court acted, an unprejudiced person can say that there was no justification or excuse for the ruling made. [Emphasis supplied. See also Brookdale Cemetery Ass'n v Lewis, 342 Mich 14; 69 NW2d 176 (1955), and Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382; 94 NW2d 810 (1959).] Our insistence upon deference to the trial judge in such matters is not inconsistent with the rule in other jurisdictions. For example, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that a reviewing court may not find abuse of discretion in a trial court's ruling on the qualifications of an expert just because it would have ruled differently had it sat as the trial court. In Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co v Blake, 144 US 476, 484; 12 S Ct 731; 36 L Ed 510 (1892), the Court stated: How much knowledge a witness must possess *421 before a party is entitled to his opinion as an expert is a matter which, in the nature of things, must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. After reviewing the qualifications of the witness, the Supreme Court affirmed and commented: "We think the ruling of the trial court in excluding his opinion was right; at any rate, it cannot be adjudged clearly erroneous." Id. See also Turner v American Security & Trust Co, 213 US 257, 261; 29 S Ct 420; 53 L Ed 788 (1909); Wojciuk v US Rubber Co, 19 Wis 2d 224, 230; 120 NW2d 47 (1963) ("`The questions in that regard, however, relate to mere competency, and, therefore, the trial judge's determination thereof, within all reasonable limits is supreme'" [emphasis supplied]); Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors, Inc, 32 NJ 358, 411; 161 A2d 69 (1960) ("In our view, the experience of the witness, as an automobile repairman and as an appraiser of damaged cars, was such as to preclude a holding by us that the trial court accepted his qualifications without any reasonable basis" [emphasis supplied]); Ricard v Prudential Ins Co of America, 87 NH 31, 33; 173 A 375 (1934) ("The only question before us is whether there is any evidence upon which the decision of that court could reasonably be made" [emphasis supplied]); and Webb v Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp, 9 Utah 2d 275; 342 P2d 1094 (1959). Such cases are illustrative of the general rule as set forth by a leading author on evidence: As with the question of whether expert opinion upon the subject matter should be permitted, the qualification of the expert is a question which lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling will not be overturned in the absence *422 of clear abuse, a standard which will rarely be met. [3 Weinstein, Evidence, Opinions and Expert Testimony, § 702(04), pp 702-45 to 702-47. See also 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error, § 843, p 287; 31 Am Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence, § 31, pp 530-533.] In this instance the trial judge's ruling was sound, particularly in light of undisputed record evidence that the mastitis in plaintiffs' herd may have been related to one or more of a number of causes.[4] Plaintiff Robert Mulholland admitted that cows in the herd had mastitis problems before the *423 DEC milking system was installed,[5] and his records showed that as late as seven months after the system was modified by Beale, eighteen cows were being treated for mastitis, eleven of which had not been treated before. Dr. George Stuewer, a veterinarian, testified that nationwide, forty percent of all cows have two or more quarters which are infected with mastitis. Plaintiff Robert Mulholland acknowledged that unsanitary conditions or unsuitable bedding may be a contributing cause of mastitis, and there was evidence at trial that these conditions existed on plaintiffs' farm. Mr. Robert Mulholland testified that in 1979 and 1980 the Department of Agriculture inspected the farm and instructed him to clean the barn walls and to change the inflations (rubber lining) of the claws of their milking machines. Despite those instructions, he admitted that after four and one-half years he had not completely cleaned out the cows' stalls. Mr. Robert Mulholland also testified that he put lime bedding in the stalls in September, 1980.[6]*424 Thereafter, on December 17, 1980, Dr. Mellenberger of the Michigan State University Extension Service advised the Mulhollands to remove the lime, an irritating substance, from the cows' bedding. Notwithstanding that advice, the lime was not removed. According to Mr. Robert Mulholland, "We didn't clean it out. We just kept adding sawdust to it." In addition, the record suggests the possibility that cows purchased by plaintiffs to expand their herd were already infected. Robert and Richard Mulholland testified that they bought at least eighty-nine cows between November, 1979, and March, 1981, and that none of that number was tested for mastitis. Dr. Stuewer, a licensed veterinarian, testified that sometimes it is impossible to detect the precise cause of mastitis,[7] and that he was "not going to attempt as an expert witness to tell anybody that the milking equipment was definitely involved" in the cows' mastitis problem. In response to a question, Beale conceded that it would be necessary to eliminate all the other potential causes before it would be possible to settle on one cause of mastitis in a particular cow.[8] *425 If the "abuse of discretion" standard is to have meaning, there must be room for some difference in judgment. Williams v Hofley Mfg Co, 430 Mich 603, 619; 424 NW2d 278 (1988). In this case, the question presented admittedly is a close call. Precisely because that is so, the trial judge's decision is entitled to deference. We cannot say there was abuse of discretion because we might have ruled differently had we been sitting as the trial court. I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. RILEY, C.J., and BRICKLEY, J., concurred with GRIFFIN, J.