Cases from cite.case.law:

SANCHEZ, v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 245 So. 3d 933 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . deposition transcript was filed without any ruling on that objection, apparently made under section 90.407 . . .

LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, v. ISLAND WATER ASSOCIATION, INC., 218 So. 3d 974 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . to the trial court that evidence of the subsequent remedial measures was inadmissible under section 90.407 . . . Section 90.407 provides as follows; Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm caused by ,an . . . Lee County argues that the exception in section 90.407 applies because the evidence would be offered . . . See § 90.407. . . .

BENJAMIN, v. TANDEM HEALTHCARE, INC. a d b a a, 93 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 90.407, Fla. . . . First, it should be noted that Tandem did not assert section 90.407, Florida Statutes (2009), as a basis . . . “Being more careful” may fall within the exclusionary basis pursuant to section 90.407, but it is not . . .

ROSEMAN, v. TOWN SQUARE ASSOCIATION, INC. a, 810 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . While evidence of subsequent remedial repairs may be admissible for impeachment purposes, see § 90.407 . . . See § 90.407, Fla. Stat. (1999); Donahue v. . . . Section 90.407 states the rule “does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures . . . Moreover, it is arguable that the evidence falls squarely into section 90.407’s prohibition of introducing . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE, 782 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2000)

. . . , Florida Statutes, Interpreter services for deaf person); and 99-225, section 13 (amending section 90.407 . . .

GLANZBERG, v. H. KAUFFMAN, H. P. A. Co., 788 So. 2d 252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 90.407, Fla, Stat. (1997) (amended in 1999). . . . conclusion that the evidence Glanzberg sought to admit was offered for a purpose prohibited under section 90.407 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, v. JULIANO,, 744 So. 2d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . evidence of subsequent remedial measures to the floor at the weigh station in violation of section 90.407 . . .

DAHARAN WELL TEXACO OIL CO. v. McFADDEN, Jr., 717 So. 2d 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Vistaview Apartments, Ltd., 613 So.2d 493, 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); § 90.407, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

A. HARRIS, v. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT CO. a, 700 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . evidence constituted subsequent remedial measures and that it was inadmissible pursuant to section 90.407 . . . This type of evidence is inadmissible pursuant to section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1995). . . . Section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1995), provides as follows: Subsequent remedial measures. — Evidence . . .

BRANTLEY v. SNAPPER POWER EQUIPMENT, A DIVISION OF FUQUA INDUSTRIES, INC. s, 665 So. 2d 241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . The basis for the ruling was the claimed effect of section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1991), which precludes . . . Section 90.407 was invoked because the defective weld problem had been documented in notices, service . . . As the Fourth District has recently and squarely held, section 90.407 does not apply to the pre-accident . . . Assuming arguendo that section 90.407 were applicable here, the statute provides that "[e]vi-dence of . . .

KELLER INDUSTRIES, v. VOLK Jr., 657 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1991), provides: 90.407 Subsequent remedial measures. — Evidence of . . . Section 90.407 and part of Federal Rule of Evidence 407 are almost identical. Rule 407. . . . The Voynar court extended the application of section 90.407 and its “recognized exceptions” to strict . . . In the present case, the lawyers and trial court inserted section 90.407 into the case, then entered . . . Thus, the feasibility exception to section 90.407 may not be utilized. . . .

WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY, v. BLALOCK, a, 640 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Parks, 89 Fla. 405, 104 So. 587 (Fla.1925); § 90.407, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

CURRIE, a v. PALM BEACH COUNTY,, 578 So. 2d 760 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . wished to introduce evidence of these facts, which the Court ruled inad-missable pursuant to FLA.STAT. 90.407 . . .

MEHLER, v. FLORIDA KEYS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATES, INC., 576 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Rosania, 546 So.2d 736, 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); § 90.407, Fla.Stat. (1987), and did not, as urged, qualify . . .

M. WATSON v. BUILDERS SQUARE, INC. a, 563 So. 2d 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . F.S. 90.407 The trial judge did not commit reversible error when, pursuant to Section 90.407, Florida . . . IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT Even if admissible as an exception to section 90.407, as stated in Erp v. . . .

CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, INC. v. ROSANIA, 546 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Hardy, 160 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1987). . . . This is contrary to Section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1987), and the cited cases. . . . It is certainly true that, in accordance with the familiar rule codified in section 90.407, Florida Statutes . . .

ALDERMAN, F. v. WYSONG MILES COMPANY, a, 486 So. 2d 673 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . the rule prohibiting introduction of evidence of subsequent remedial measures, codified as Section 90.407 . . . accept appellant’s alternative contention that the evidence did not fall within the confines of Section 90.407 . . .

M CORPORATION- McGHAN MEDICAL REPORTS DIVISION, v. BROWN,, 475 So. 2d 994 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 90.407, Florida Statutes: Subsequent Remedial Measures — Evidence of measures taken after an . . .

DONAHUE, v. ALBERTSON S INC., 472 So. 2d 482 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . incidents involved a showing of subsequent repairs, such evidence was not inadmissible under section 90.407 . . .

DEL MONTE BANANA COMPANY v. CHACON,, 466 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . See § 90.407, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), review denied, 431 So.2d 988 (Fla.), review denied, 431 So.2d 989 (Fla.1983); § 90.407 . . .

ASHCROFT, v. CALDER RACE COURSE, INC. a, 464 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . instruction limiting the scope of evidence of remedial measures taken by Calder subsequent to the incident, § 90.407 . . .

CRUZ, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY,, 462 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Chapter 90.407, Florida Statutes (1983). . . .

VOYNAR, v. BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a, 463 So. 2d 409 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1983), clearly makes such evidence inadmissible in negligence actions . . . Unlike Section 90.407, Federal Rule 407 specifically states certain exceptions which can result in the . . .

THURSBY v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, a a, 466 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . not a party to the litigation, the policy underlying the rule of exclusion now embodied in Section 90.407 . . . In such circumstances, the policies advanced by Section 90.407 are not implicated because the evidence . . . Thus, the evidence was offered for a purpose for which its use is prohibited under Section 90.407, which . . . Section 90.407, Subsequent remedial measures: "Evidence of measures taken after an event, which measure . . .

JOHNS- MANVILLE SALES CORP. v. J. JANSSENS A., 463 So. 2d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . evidence of subsequent remedial measures announced in the cited cases and presently codified in section 90.407 . . . Section 90.407 reads: Evidence of measures taken after an event, which measures if taken before it occurred . . .

WHITE CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. v. DUPONT B., 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)

. . . Section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1981) codifies this long-standing common law rule: Evidence of measures . . .

SIKES, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a, 429 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . The rule of law barring admission of evidence on such basis is embodied in Section 90.407, Florida Statutes . . . penalized for an attempt to prevent injuries to others, .... ” Law Revision Council Note-1976, 6B F.S.A. § 90.407 . . . Thus, we conclude that the lower court erred in applying the rule embodied in Section 90.407, because . . .

J. MURRAY v. ALMADEN VINEYARDS, INC., 429 So. 2d 24 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . The court, relying on the subsequent remedial exclusionary rule, section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1981 . . .

ALLETT v. HILL,, 422 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . The court refused to give the instruction, from Section 90.407, Florida Statutes (1981) which provides . . .

REINHART, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, 422 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . . § 90.407, Fla.Stat. (1981); Department of Transportation v. Webb. . . .

HARTMAN, v. OPELIKA MACHINE AND WELDING COMPANY, 414 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Hardy, 160 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), and see Section 90.407, Florida Statutes (Supp.1980), “Subsequent . . .

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, v. WEBB,, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . We construe Section 90.407, which prohibits the admission of evidence of remedial measures “taken after . . .

PENSACOLA INN LIMITED, E. v. H. TUTHILL,, 404 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . The rule is found in the Florida Evidence Code, Section 90.407: Subsequent remedial measures. — Evidence . . .