In a negligence action arising from an automobile collision at an intersection, the plaintiff seeks to introduce testimony that the defendant, for the past five years, has invariably come to a complete stop at the stop sign controlling that intersection before proceeding. Which of the following best explains the admissibility of this testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence?
The evidence is admissible because it pertains to a regular pattern of behavior in a specific, repeated situation.
The evidence is admissible only if it can be corroborated by an independent witness who observed the defendant on the day of the collision.
The evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant first testifies about their driving practices.
The evidence is inadmissible because it is improper character evidence intended to show the defendant is a careful person.
The correct answer is that evidence of the defendant's specific and consistent action of stopping at the same stop sign over many years constitutes habit evidence. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 406, evidence of a person's habit is admissible to prove that on a particular occasion, the person acted in conformity with that habit. This is different from inadmissible character evidence, which would be a general assertion about the defendant's disposition (e.g., that the defendant is a 'careful driver'). The rules for habit evidence do not require corroborating witnesses or that the person with the habit must be the one to testify.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is meant by 'habit evidence' in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does habit evidence differ from character evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the rules regarding the admissibility of habit evidence in court?