§ 8.01-397.1.Evidence of habit or routine practice; defined (Supreme Court Rule 2:406 derived from this section).
Chapter 14. Evidence · Article 4. Witnesses Generally · Last amended 2000 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceThis section makes evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice admissible, with or without corroboration or eyewitnesses, to prove that conduct on a particular occasion matched that habit or practice, defines both terms as regular responses to repeated specific situations, and limits the rule to civil proceedings.
A.Admissibility. Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eye witnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the
person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. Evidence of prior conduct may be relevant to rebut evidence of habit or routine practice.
B.Habit and routine practice defined. A "habit" is a person's regular response to repeated specific situations. A "routine practice" is a regular course of conduct of a group of persons or an organization in response to repeated specific situations.
C.The provisions of this section are applicable only in civil proceedings.
Plain-English Summary
Some conduct is so regular it becomes predictable — a driver who always stops fully at a particular intersection, a company that always inspects equipment before shipping it out. Section 8.01-397.1 lets that pattern of behavior serve as evidence that the person or organization acted the same way on the occasion now in dispute.
Unlike character evidence, which speaks to a person’s general disposition and is treated with more caution, habit and routine-practice evidence gets a more direct path into the record. It is relevant to prove conformity on a particular occasion, and it does not need corroboration or an eyewitness to be admitted. The statute also allows the opposing side to offer evidence of prior conduct that cuts the other way, to rebut a claimed habit or routine practice.
The section is careful to define its terms. A “habit” belongs to an individual — a regular response to repeated specific situations. A “routine practice” belongs to a group or organization — the same idea of a regular course of conduct in response to repeated situations, just at an institutional scale. And the rule applies only in civil proceedings, not criminal ones.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does habit evidence need to be corroborated to be admitted?
No, the statute states that evidence of habit or routine practice is relevant and admissible whether corroborated or not, and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses.
What is the difference between a “habit” and a “routine practice” under this section?
A habit is a person’s regular response to repeated specific situations, while a routine practice is a regular course of conduct by a group of persons or an organization in response to repeated specific situations.
Can the other side fight back against a claim of habit or routine practice?
Yes, evidence of prior conduct may be offered to rebut evidence of habit or routine practice.
Does this section apply in criminal cases?
No, the provisions of this section apply only in civil proceedings.
What is habit or routine practice evidence used to prove?
It is used to prove that a person’s or organization’s conduct on a particular occasion conformed to their established habit or routine practice.
Amendment History
2000, c. 1026.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:virginia habit evidence ruleva code 8.01-397.1virginia routine practice evidencehabit vs character evidence virginiaproving conduct through habit virginia civil case