Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.

2011 Advisory Committee Note. The language of this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make class and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim.

Original Advisory Committee Note. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim, and is comparable to Rule 49, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971). The substance of Rule 50, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971) providing for the method of proof of habit or custom and allowing evidence in the form of opinion as well as specific instances when the number of instances is sufficient to warrant a finding of habit or custom was deleted by Congress with a note by the House Judiciary Committee 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) as originally promulgated by the United States Supreme Court.