Rule 2:406.HABIT AND ROUTINE PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES (derived from Code § 8.01-397.1)

Habit evidence works differently from the character evidence Rule 2:404 restricts. Rule 2:406(a) allows evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice in civil cases to prove that the person or organization acted consistently with that habit or practice on the occasion at issue — and unlike character evidence generally, this kind of proof does not need corroboration or an eyewitness to the specific event to be relevant. Evidence of prior conduct can also work in the opposite direction, rebutting a claim that a habit or routine practice existed.

Subdivision (b) draws the line between habit evidence and character evidence by definition. A “habit” is a person’s regular response to repeated specific situations — something narrow, mechanical, and consistent, like always locking a particular door or always signing a document in a certain place. A “routine practice” is the organizational equivalent: a regular course of conduct a group or organization follows in response to repeated specific situations, such as a business’s standard procedure for inspecting equipment. Both concepts are narrower than general character traits, which is why the law treats proof of habit and routine practice more permissively than proof of character.