Article IV. Relevance
(a) Evidence of the habit of a person, an animal, 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, animal, or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
(b) A habit is a regular response to a repeated specific situation. A routine practice is a regular course of conduct of an organization.
Advisory Commission Comments.
Tennessee has long admitted animal habit. Copley v. State, 153 Tenn. 189, 281 S.W. 460 (1925), is the leading case. Authorities supporting admissibility of human habit and business custom are collected in Tennessee Law of Evidence § 30.
The second paragraph defines habit and routine practice, emphasizing the need for a "regular response" when a person, animal, or organization is faced with a given situation.