SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

On June 1, 2006, the plaintiff Sandra Lewis fell on a rain soaked outside flight of terrazzo steps while leaving a hotel-restaurant on Miami Beach. She sued the operators and now appeals from a jury verdict and judgment for the defendants. She raises what is essentially a single issue, the claim that the trial court erred in permitting evidence that there had been no prior falls since the building was constructed and opened as the Waldorf Hotel in 1937. While the issue is far from unsubstantial we are compelled to disagree.

It is well recognized that a no-accident history of the location of a premises liability case may be admitted into evidence for a variety of purposes including the central one of showing that the area was not in fact dangerous or defective. See Springtree Props., Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla.1997) (considering absence of similar accidents in determining whether fact issues remained); Cent. Theatres v. Wilkinson, 154 Fla. 589, 18 So.2d 755 (1944) (evidence that for several years there had been no accident from shooting at location admissible); State, Dep't of Transp. v. Patterson, 594 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("[A]ppellant was entitled to have the jury consider that the records it still maintained revealed no bicycle accidents in the tunnel prior to the present accident."); McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (relying in part on evidence that no one had fallen over the concrete blocks at issue during the preceding seventeen years); see also Doe v. U.S., 718 F.2d 1039, 1043 (11th Cir.1983) (applying Florida law and approving evidence that for a number of years before the incident, there had never been a crime against a person committed on the premises); see generally Kenneth S. Broun, 1 McCormick on Evidence § 200 n. 34 (6th ed. 2009) ("A large number of cases recognize that lack of other accidents may be admissible to show (1) [an] absence of the defect or condition alleged, (2) the lack of a causal relationship between the injury and the defect or condition charged, (3) the nonexistence of an unduly dangerous situation, or (4) want of knowledge (or of grounds to realize) the danger." (footnotes omitted))1; 23 Fla. Jur.2d Evidence and Witnesses § 186 (2010); 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 564 (2010).

We conclude that reversal is not justified by the challenged ruling because in the last analysis, we cannot find the trial court abused the discretion it is said to have:

(1) in the admission of evidence in general, see Ramirez v. State, 810 So.2d 836, 852 n. 51 (Fla.2001); Fla. Inst. for Neurologic Rehab., Inc. v. Marshall, 943 So.2d 976, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); LaMarr v. Lang 796 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001);

(2) more specifically, in the admission of testimony concerning the prior safety history of the site in question, that is, previous accidents or their absence, see Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 299 So.2d 590, 594 (Fla.1974); Williams v. Madden 588 So.2d 41, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see generally cases collected, Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Admissibility of Evidence of Absence of Other Accidents or Injuries at Place Where Injury or Damage Occurred, 10 A.L.R. 5th 371 (1993);

(3) in the even narrower but determinative issue as to whether the similarities in the previous circumstances outweigh the dissimilarities, so as to permit the introduction of that testimony. See Lawrence v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 346 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Fla.1977) ("[D]eterminations of whether a proper predicate of similarity exists should be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge."); Friddle v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 306 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So.2d 870, 873 (Fla.1969); Hogan v. Gable, 30 So.3d 573, 575-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Warn Indus. v. Geist, 343 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); but cf. Godfrey v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 46 So.3d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Cooper v. State, 45 So.3d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (concluding "the dissimilarities of these cases are greater than their similarities"). As to this latter point, the record shows that while there were (as there had to be) variations in the circumstances surrounding the steps and their use,2 their basic dimensions, configuration, and composition—and their dangerous character, or lack of same—remained constant for the seventy plus years they were in use.3 See Erickson, supra note 1. The significance of that stark fact was properly for the jury to consider.4

Affirmed.