SC · rules
SCRE 406
Habit; Routine Practice
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 eyewitnesses, 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.
Note:
This rule is identical to the federal rule and makes it clear that the presence or absence
of eyewitnesses does not affect the relevancy of evidence of habit or routine practice.
To the extent that South Carolina law regarding evidence of habit or routine was
previously read to require the absence of eyewitnesses, this rule constitutes a change
in the law. Compare Laney v. Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co., 211 S.C. 328, 45 S.E.2d
184 (1947); State v. Hester, 137 S.C. 145, 134 S.E. 885 (1926); Dowling v. Fenner, 131
S.C. 62, 126 S.E. 432 (1922) with Holcombe v. Watson Supply Co., 171 S.C. 110, 171 S.E.
604 (1933).
Provenance
- Source
- www.sccourts.org
- Retrieved
- 2026-10-02
- Edition
- supplied-sc-04-print-version-2026-10-02
- Content hash
8bb6ca6ce5510c21628494fbc78e359a8d78cd82c9587d21bed93d0780ac2b0a
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.