With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trial court permitted details of a settlement agreement with a codefendant to become a feature of the trial). Because no foundation was laid establishing a substantial similarity between Hall’s accident and other accidents referenced by plaintiff throughout the trial, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence and the verdict must be set aside and the matter remanded for a new trial involving both liability and compensatory damages. Reversed and remanded. 1 . The jury also awarded $1.2 million for lost support and services, but the trial court vacated this award. 2 . Nevertheless, under the facts of this case, the admission of post-accident remedial measures was also improper and constitutes reversible error. . Bachanov, 436 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (<HOLDING>); Ry. Express Agency v. Fulmer, 227 So.2d 870,

A: holding that model rule 53 requires courts to apply the same ethical standards to nonlawyer employees
B: holding that two prior complaints and the testimony from two witnesses who were injured by the same model meat grinder were admissible to rebut the notion that defendant had no notice of a defective condition of the grinder model at issue
C: holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment
D: holding two instances of violating  148 were two offenses because thirty minutes elapsed between the two incidents and in the intervening space of time the defendant had completely calmed down and ceased his criminal activity
B.