Evidenceof a person?s habit or an organization?s routine practice maybe admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person ororganization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The courtmay admit this evidence regardless of whether it iscorroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.
2011Advisory Committee Note. ?The language of this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the EvidenceRules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminologyconsistent throughout the rules. These changes are intendedto be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling onevidence admissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim.
Original Advisory CommitteeNote.? This rule is the federal rule, verbatim, and is comparable to Rule49, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971). The substance of Rule 50,Utah Rules of Evidence (1971) providing for the method of proof of habit orcustom and allowing evidence in the form of opinion as well as specificinstances when the number of instances is sufficient to warrant a finding ofhabit or custom was deleted by Congress with a note by the House JudiciaryCommittee that the method of proof should be left with the Court.Compare Rule 406(b), Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974), which is Rule 406(b) asoriginally promulgated by the United States Supreme Court.