Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Habit Evidence

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Habit EvidenceQuestion 1 of 20

A pedestrian is hit by a delivery truck. The pedestrian claims the driver was speeding. The delivery company, as part of its defense, seeks to introduce GPS data from the truck showing that on the 30 delivery routes the driver completed in the week prior to the accident, he never once exceeded the speed limit.

Is the GPS data admissible to prove the driver was not speeding at the time of the accident? Select one.

No, because it constitutes impermissible character evidence that the driver is a safe and law-abiding person.

No, because what the driver did on other occasions is not relevant to his conduct at the time of the accident.

Yes, because it is a business record that falls under an exception to the hearsay rule.

Yes, because the data establishes a consistent habit of compliance with speed limits.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Habit Evidence

Practice Habit Evidence in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Habit Evidence, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Is the GPS data admissible to prove the driver was not speeding at the time of the accident? Select one.

No, because it constitutes impermissible character evidence that the driver is a safe and law-abiding person.
No, because what the driver did on other occasions is not relevant to his conduct at the time of the accident.
Yes, because it is a business record that falls under an exception to the hearsay rule.
Yes, because the data establishes a consistent habit of compliance with speed limits. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of the difference between impermissible character evidence and admissible habit evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. When you see evidence of past conduct offered to prove present conduct, you need to determine whether it's character evidence (generally inadmissible) or habit evidence (admissible). The GPS data is admissible because it establishes a habit of speed limit compliance. Habit evidence under Rule 406 requires conduct that is (1) repeated, (2) specific, and (3) semi-automatic. Here, the driver's consistent compliance with speed limits over 30 separate occasions demonstrates a specific, repeated behavioral pattern that becomes semi-automatic. This habit evidence can be used to prove the driver likely acted in conformity with this habit during the accident. Option A is incorrect because this isn't character evidence about the driver being "law-abiding" generally - it's specific behavioral evidence about speed compliance. Option B misses the point that habit evidence is specifically designed to show that past conduct patterns predict present conduct when the pattern is sufficiently established. Option C identifies a potential foundation issue (business records) but misses the main admissibility theory. While the GPS data might need proper authentication, the primary basis for admission is habit evidence, not the business records exception. Remember this distinction: character evidence describes general traits ("he's a careful person"), while habit evidence shows specific, repeated conduct patterns ("he always checks his mirrors before changing lanes"). Courts readily admit habit evidence because specific behavioral patterns are more probative and less prejudicial than general character traits.

Question 2

A man is accused of assaulting a stranger in a parking lot. The man claims he acted in self-defense. At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce testimony from the man's neighbor that the man 'has a very short temper and often gets into shouting matches with people over minor issues like parking spots.'

The defense objects to the neighbor's testimony. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

Overrule, because the testimony establishes a habit of aggression in response to parking disputes.
Overrule, because the defendant placed his character at issue by claiming self-defense.
Sustain, because the prejudicial effect of the testimony substantially outweighs its probative value.
Sustain, because the testimony is inadmissible character evidence offered to prove the defendant was the first aggressor. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of character evidence rules, specifically when the prosecution can introduce evidence of a defendant's character for violence or aggression. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the prosecution generally cannot introduce character evidence to prove that a defendant acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. This is exactly what's happening here - the neighbor's testimony about the defendant's "short temper" and tendency to get into confrontations is classic propensity evidence, offered to suggest he was likely the aggressor in this specific incident. The correct answer is D because this testimony constitutes inadmissible character evidence being used to prove the defendant was the first aggressor. The prosecution is trying to use the defendant's alleged character trait (short temper) to prove he acted aggressively in this particular case, which violates the basic rule against propensity evidence. Answer A incorrectly characterizes this as habit evidence. Habit requires highly specific, repetitive conduct, not general character traits like having a "short temper." Answer B misapplies the law - claiming self-defense doesn't automatically put the defendant's character at issue in a way that opens the door to prosecution character evidence. Answer C suggests a Rule 403 balancing test, but this evidence should be excluded outright under character evidence rules, not just because it's overly prejudicial. Remember: The prosecution cannot introduce character evidence about the defendant unless the defendant first "opens the door" by introducing evidence of their own good character or the victim's bad character.

Question 3

A driver is being sued for negligence following a traffic accident where he collided with a motorcyclist while changing lanes. The motorcyclist alleges the driver failed to check his blind spot. To rebut this, the driver's attorney calls the driver's spouse to testify that the driver is an 'exceptionally cautious driver' and that he 'always looks over his shoulder before changing lanes.' The motorcyclist's attorney objects to the spouse's testimony.

How is the court most likely to rule on the objection to the spouse's testimony that the driver 'always looks over his shoulder before changing lanes'? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the testimony is improper character evidence of the driver's carefulness.
Sustain the objection, because a spouse's testimony about her husband's driving habits is inherently biased and lacks foundation.
Overrule the objection, because the testimony is admissible evidence of the driver's habit. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, but only if there were no other eyewitnesses to the lane change.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 406, evidence of a person's habit may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the habit. A habit is a regular, reflexive response to a specific situation. The testimony that the driver 'always looks over his shoulder before changing lanes' describes a specific, repeated action, which qualifies as habit. A is incorrect because while testimony about being an 'exceptionally cautious driver' would be inadmissible character evidence, the specific action of looking over his shoulder is habit. B is incorrect because bias affects the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and the spouse has a proper foundation from observing the driver's behavior. D is incorrect because habit evidence is admissible regardless of whether it is corroborated or there are eyewitnesses.

Question 4

A plaintiff sued a bar for injuries sustained in a fight, alleging the bar provided negligent security. The plaintiff's attorney seeks to introduce testimony from a regular patron of the bar. The patron would testify that the bar's two bouncers 'routinely ignore altercations until someone is already injured, at which point they call the police.'

Is the patron's testimony admissible? Select one.

No, because it is an improper lay opinion on the ultimate issue of the bar's negligence.
No, because it is character evidence about the bouncers' tendency toward inaction.
Yes, because it is evidence of the organization's routine practice in responding to altercations. (correct answer)
Yes, because it is a statement against interest made by the bar's employees, the bouncers.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The testimony describes the standard, repeated response of the bar's employees (acting on its behalf) to a specific situation (altercations). This qualifies as evidence of the routine practice of an organization under FRE 406, which is admissible to show that the bar acted in conformity with that practice on the night of the plaintiff's injury. A is incorrect because the testimony is based on the witness's personal observations of specific conduct, not an opinion on a legal standard. B incorrectly categorizes the specific response pattern as general character. D is incorrect because the testimony is not quoting any out-of-court statement by the bouncers; it is describing their observed conduct.

Question 5

Is the GPS data admissible to prove the driver was not speeding at the time of the accident? Select one.

No, because it constitutes impermissible character evidence that the driver is a safe and law-abiding person.
No, because what the driver did on other occasions is not relevant to his conduct at the time of the accident.
Yes, because it is a business record that falls under an exception to the hearsay rule.
Yes, because the data establishes a consistent habit of compliance with speed limits. (correct answer)

Question 6

A pharmacist is sued for filling a prescription with the wrong medication. To prove his lack of negligence, the pharmacist seeks to testify that he personally follows a strict, six-step verification process for every prescription he fills and has done so for 20 years.

The plaintiff objects that the pharmacist's testimony is self-serving and improper character evidence. How should the court rule? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because a party cannot testify to his own habits.
Sustain the objection, because the testimony is an attempt to prove the pharmacist has a character for being careful.
Overrule the objection, but instruct the jury that the testimony must be corroborated by other evidence to be considered.
Overrule the objection, because a person may testify to their own specific habit to show conformity on a particular occasion. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving a person's regular practices or routines, you're dealing with habit evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 406. Habit evidence differs from character evidence because it describes specific, repeated conduct in particular situations rather than general personality traits. The correct answer is D because Federal Rule of Evidence 406 explicitly allows habit evidence to prove that a person acted in accordance with their habit on a particular occasion. The pharmacist's testimony about his consistent six-step verification process describes a specific, regular practice he follows in the same situation (filling prescriptions). This is classic habit evidence, and a person can indeed testify about their own habits. The testimony is directly relevant to whether he followed his usual careful process on this occasion. Option A is wrong because there's no rule prohibiting parties from testifying about their own habits. Self-testimony about habits is permissible and common. Option B incorrectly characterizes this as character evidence. While "being careful" might sound like a character trait, the pharmacist isn't testifying about his general carefulness—he's describing a specific, repetitive procedure he follows. Option C is incorrect because habit evidence doesn't require corroboration under the Federal Rules, unlike some other evidence types. Remember this distinction: character evidence asks "what kind of person is he?" while habit evidence asks "what does he regularly do in this specific situation?" Courts readily admit habit evidence because habits are more predictive of behavior than general character traits, and the specific, repetitive nature makes such evidence more reliable.

Question 7

You are defending a corporation in a lawsuit brought by a former executive who claims he was fired in breach of an oral promise of long-term employment. Your client, the CEO, claims no such promise was made. You want to introduce evidence that in every one of the 50 executive-level employment contracts the corporation has entered into over the past decade, the contract has included a standard 'at-will employment' clause.

The plaintiff's attorney objects to your proposed evidence. What is your strongest argument that the evidence is admissible? Select one.

It is evidence of the corporation's routine practice, which is relevant to show that a similar practice was followed here. (correct answer)
It is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
It is admissible to show the executive's motive for fabricating the existence of an oral promise.
It is admissible to impeach the executive's testimony that an oral promise was made.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Evidence that the corporation invariably included an 'at-will' clause in its executive contracts establishes a routine practice under FRE 406. This is admissible as circumstantial evidence that the corporation likely acted in conformity with that practice in its dealings with the plaintiff, thus tending to show that no contrary oral promise was made. B is incorrect because while the contracts themselves might be business records, the evidence is being offered to show the routine practice, a distinct evidentiary purpose. C is incorrect as the evidence does not logically point to the executive's motive to fabricate. D is incorrect because the evidence is offered as substantive proof of the likely terms of employment, not merely to impeach.

Question 8

A professional skydiver died when his parachute failed to deploy. His family sued the skydiving company, claiming an employee negligently packed the parachute. The company seeks to introduce testimony from the decedent's friend that the decedent was a 'daredevil' who 'always insisted on packing his own parachute, even when an employee offered to do it for him.'

Is the friend's testimony that the decedent 'always insisted on packing his own parachute' admissible? Select one.

Yes, because it is evidence of the decedent's habit, which is relevant to the issue of who packed the parachute. (correct answer)
Yes, because the decedent's character as a 'daredevil' is an essential element of the defense of assumption of risk.
No, because it is inadmissible character evidence offered to prove the decedent was negligent.
No, because the decedent is not available to be cross-examined about his practices.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The testimony that the decedent 'always insisted on packing his own parachute' describes a specific, regular response to the situation of preparing for a jump. This is admissible as evidence of habit under FRE 406 to prove he acted in conformity with that habit on the day of his death, which is directly relevant to whether the company's employee packed the parachute. C is incorrect because this is specific habit, not general character evidence of negligence. The part about being a 'daredevil' would be inadmissible character evidence, but the part about packing the parachute is admissible habit. B is incorrect because character is rarely an essential element of a claim or defense, and assumption of risk here depends on his actions, not his character. D is incorrect because the admissibility of habit evidence does not depend on the availability of the person whose habit is being described.

Question 9

A man is on trial for residential burglary. The prosecution's theory is that the man entered an unlocked patio door. The homeowner testified that she is certain she locked the door before leaving. The defense seeks to call the homeowner's former roommate to testify that, during the two years they lived together, the homeowner 'never once locked the patio door.'

The prosecution objects to the roommate's testimony. How should the court rule? Select one.

Admit the testimony, as it is evidence of a specific habit offered to show conduct in conformity therewith. (correct answer)
Exclude the testimony, because evidence of habit cannot be used to prove a negative act or an omission.
Exclude the testimony, as it is improper character evidence intended to portray the homeowner as careless.
Admit the testimony, but only for the purpose of impeaching the homeowner's testimony that she was certain she locked the door.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The testimony that the homeowner 'never once locked the patio door' describes a consistent, specific response to the situation of leaving the house. This is admissible as habit evidence under FRE 406 to prove that she likely acted in conformity with that habit and left the door unlocked on the day of the burglary. B is an incorrect statement of law; habit evidence can be used to prove an omission (a 'negative habit'). C is incorrect because the testimony is not about the homeowner's general character for carelessness but about a specific, repeated action (or lack thereof). D is incorrect because the evidence is admissible as substantive evidence to prove the door was unlocked, not merely for impeachment.

Question 10

You are representing a patient in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Your client claims the surgeon failed to obtain informed consent before a risky procedure. The surgeon, in his deposition, stated he has no specific memory of the consultation but that he 'makes it a point to be very thorough with patients.' You plan to call a nurse who worked with the surgeon for five years to testify that the surgeon 'habitually conducted pre-surgical consultations in under five minutes and always used complex medical jargon without explanation.'

The defense files a motion in limine to exclude the nurse's testimony. What is your strongest argument for its admissibility? Select one.

The testimony is admissible to impeach the surgeon's credibility by showing he is not 'thorough.'
The testimony is admissible as evidence of the surgeon's routine practice in a specific professional context. (correct answer)
The testimony is admissible under FRE 404(b) to show the surgeon's absence of mistake in failing to properly inform the patient.
The testimony is admissible as character evidence because the surgeon placed his character for thoroughness at issue.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The nurse's testimony describes the surgeon's specific, repeated method of conducting pre-surgical consultations. This constitutes a routine practice or habit under FRE 406, which is admissible to show that he acted in conformity with that practice during the consultation with the plaintiff. A is incorrect because while the evidence may have an impeaching effect, its primary basis for admissibility is as substantive evidence of habit. D is incorrect because simply claiming to be 'thorough' does not place one's character at issue in a way that opens the door to specific acts evidence from an opponent. C is incorrect because 'absence of mistake' under 404(b) is typically used to show an act was intentional, which is not the core issue here; the issue is what the surgeon's standard practice was. Habit is the more direct and proper basis for admission.

Question 11

The defense objects to the neighbor's testimony. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

Overrule, because the testimony establishes a habit of aggression in response to parking disputes.
Overrule, because the defendant placed his character at issue by claiming self-defense.
Sustain, because the prejudicial effect of the testimony substantially outweighs its probative value.
Sustain, because the testimony is inadmissible character evidence offered to prove the defendant was the first aggressor. (correct answer)

Question 12

In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff alleges that a freight train engineer was negligent in failing to sound the train's horn at a railroad crossing. The railroad company seeks to introduce testimony from the engineer's supervisor. The supervisor will testify that in the engineer's 20-year career, he has 'always been a stickler for safety rules' and that the engineer's 'unvarying practice at every crossing is to sound the horn twice.'

Which portion of the supervisor's testimony is most likely to be admitted into evidence? Select one.

The statement that the engineer has 'always been a stickler for safety rules,' as it shows his character for carefulness.
The statement about the engineer's 'unvarying practice' of sounding the horn, as it is proper evidence of habit. (correct answer)
Both statements are admissible to show the engineer acted properly on the occasion in question.
Neither statement is admissible because they are self-serving statements offered by the defendant's employer.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The testimony about the engineer's 'unvarying practice at every crossing is to sound the horn twice' describes a specific, routine, and semi-automatic behavior, which qualifies as admissible habit evidence under FRE 406. A is incorrect because the statement that the engineer is a 'stickler for safety rules' is a description of his general character for carefulness, which is inadmissible propensity evidence under FRE 404(a). C is incorrect because the character evidence portion is inadmissible. D is incorrect because potential bias affects the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility, and the habit evidence portion is admissible.

Question 13

The prosecution objects to the roommate's testimony. How should the court rule? Select one.

Admit the testimony, as it is evidence of a specific habit offered to show conduct in conformity therewith. (correct answer)
Exclude the testimony, because evidence of habit cannot be used to prove a negative act or an omission.
Exclude the testimony, as it is improper character evidence intended to portray the homeowner as careless.
Admit the testimony, but only for the purpose of impeaching the homeowner's testimony that she was certain she locked the door.

Question 14

A bicyclist was struck by a car in an intersection. The car's driver claims the bicyclist was negligent because he ran a stop sign. The driver seeks to introduce testimony from a witness who lives near the intersection. The witness will testify that he has seen the same bicyclist 'run that same stop sign at least ten times in the past month.'

The bicyclist's attorney objects to the witness's testimony. What is the driver's best argument for admitting the testimony? Select one.

It is admissible under FRE 404(b) to prove the bicyclist's intent to disregard the traffic signal.
It is admissible as habit evidence showing the bicyclist's regular response to that specific intersection. (correct answer)
It is admissible to impeach the bicyclist's character for truthfulness if he denies running the stop sign.
It is admissible as character evidence showing the bicyclist's propensity for reckless behavior.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The testimony describes a specific action (running a stop sign) that is repeated regularly at a particular location. This level of specificity and frequency is sufficient to argue that the conduct constitutes a habit under FRE 406, which is admissible to prove that the bicyclist acted in conformity with the habit on the day of the accident. A is incorrect because intent is not typically an element of negligence, and this is classic propensity evidence, which 404(b) does not allow. C is incorrect because specific instances of conduct are generally not admissible to attack a witness's character for truthfulness. D is incorrect because character evidence to prove propensity is generally inadmissible under FRE 404(a).

Question 15

In a personal injury case arising from a car accident at 6:00 PM on a weekday, the plaintiff seeks to introduce testimony from the defendant's former colleague. The colleague is prepared to testify that the defendant 'frequently went to a happy hour after work and was known for being a heavy drinker.'

The defendant's attorney moves to exclude the colleague's testimony. What is the defendant's strongest argument for exclusion? Select one.

The testimony is not proper habit evidence because being a 'heavy drinker' is a general character trait, not a specific, routine response. (correct answer)
The testimony is irrelevant unless the plaintiff can also produce a blood alcohol test result from the day of the accident.
The testimony is barred by the physician-patient privilege because it relates to a potential substance abuse issue.
The testimony is improper because evidence of drinking habits is always more prejudicial than probative in civil negligence cases.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The testimony that the defendant was a 'heavy drinker' is a classic example of inadmissible character evidence offered to prove propensity. The statement that he 'frequently' went to happy hour lacks the specificity and consistency required for habit evidence under FRE 406. Habit requires a more reflexive, invariable response, such as 'always stopped at this specific bar and had three martinis.' The proffered testimony is too general and describes a character for intemperance. B is incorrect because relevance is a low bar, and this testimony could be relevant even without a BAC test, but it is inadmissible for other reasons. C is incorrect as no physician-patient relationship is implicated. D is an overstatement; while prejudice is a concern, such evidence is not automatically excluded if it meets the standard for habit.

Question 16

A shipping company is sued after a valuable, fragile package was destroyed in transit. The plaintiff claims the package was improperly packed. The company defends by stating its employee followed standard procedure. At trial, the company calls the manager of its packing department. The manager testifies, 'We have a single, uniform method for packing fragile items that involves a 12-step process with specific foam inserts. Every packer is trained on this method and this method only.'

The plaintiff objects that the testimony is irrelevant without proof that the specific employee who packed the box actually followed the procedure. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the company must provide direct evidence linking the procedure to the specific event.
Sustain the objection, because the testimony is inadmissible character evidence of the company's carefulness.
Overrule the objection, because the testimony establishes a routine practice admissible to show conformity on a specific occasion. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, because the testimony is an admission by a party-opponent.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The manager's testimony describes the organization's specific and uniform method for handling a particular task. This is admissible under FRE 406 as evidence of a routine practice. The very purpose of this rule is to allow such evidence as circumstantial proof that the procedure was followed on the occasion in question, even without direct evidence. A is therefore incorrect, as direct evidence is not required. B is incorrect because this is evidence of a specific routine, not a general character trait. D is incorrect because the testimony is not being offered as an admission but as direct evidence of a routine practice.

Question 17

A plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case wants to testify that she saw the same store manager who was on duty during her accident 'arguing with other employees on three separate occasions' in the month before her fall. The plaintiff argues this testimony is relevant to show the store manager was distracted and negligent in his duty to maintain safe floor conditions.

How should a court rule on the admissibility of the plaintiff's testimony about the manager arguing? Select one.

Admissible, as habit evidence showing the manager's routine inattention to his duties.
Admissible, as evidence of the manager's motive to neglect his duties.
Inadmissible, because the plaintiff lacks personal knowledge of the substance of the arguments.
Inadmissible, because it is character evidence offered to prove the manager acted negligently. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving someone's past behavior to prove they acted similarly on a specific occasion, you're dealing with character evidence rules. The key is recognizing when evidence is being offered to show someone acted "in character" rather than for another legitimate purpose. The plaintiff's testimony about the manager arguing with employees is classic character evidence. She's essentially arguing: "This manager has a pattern of being argumentative/distracted, so he probably was negligent during my accident too." This is using character (tendency to argue) to prove conduct on a specific occasion (negligent maintenance), which Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) generally prohibits. The correct answer is D. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Option A incorrectly characterizes this as habit evidence, but habit requires very specific, repeated conduct in response to particular circumstances—not just general argumentative behavior. Three instances of arguing also falls short of the regularity needed for habit. Option B fails because there's no evidence the arguments created any motive to neglect duties; the connection between arguing with employees and floor maintenance is speculative at best. Option C focuses on a secondary issue about personal knowledge of the arguments' content, but that's not the primary admissibility problem here. Remember this pattern: when you see evidence of someone's general behavioral tendencies offered to prove they acted consistently with that behavior on a specific occasion, immediately consider the character evidence prohibition. Look for the "he's the type of person who..." reasoning—that's usually your red flag for inadmissible character evidence.

Question 18

A company is sued for breach of contract, with a key issue being whether a notice of non-renewal was mailed to the other party by a specific deadline. The company's CEO seeks to testify that the company's mailroom clerk is 'incredibly reliable' and that 'it is the mailroom's standard procedure to log all outgoing certified mail in a logbook and postmark it on the day it is received.' The logbook for the day in question cannot be found.

Is the CEO's testimony about the mailroom's standard procedure admissible to prove the notice was timely mailed? Select one.

No, because the physical logbook is the best evidence of the mailing and its absence has not been explained.
No, because the CEO lacks personal knowledge of whether this specific letter was mailed.
Yes, because it is evidence of an organization's routine practice relevant to showing conformity on a particular occasion. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the mailroom clerk also testifies and corroborates the standard procedure.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 406 allows evidence of an organization's routine practice to prove that on a particular occasion the organization acted in accordance with that practice. The testimony describes a specific procedure for handling certified mail, which qualifies as a routine practice. A is incorrect because the best evidence rule applies to proving the contents of a writing, not to proving the underlying fact of mailing. The testimony is about the routine itself, not the contents of the missing logbook. B is incorrect because the CEO can have personal knowledge of the company's established procedures without having knowledge of a specific instance. D is incorrect because evidence of a routine practice does not require corroboration to be admissible.

Question 19

The defense files a motion in limine to exclude the nurse's testimony. What is your strongest argument for its admissibility? Select one.

The testimony is admissible to impeach the surgeon's credibility by showing he is not 'thorough.'
The testimony is admissible as evidence of the surgeon's routine practice in a specific professional context. (correct answer)
The testimony is admissible under FRE 404(b) to show the surgeon's absence of mistake in failing to properly inform the patient.
The testimony is admissible as character evidence because the surgeon placed his character for thoroughness at issue.

Question 20

Is the patron's testimony admissible? Select one.

No, because it is an improper lay opinion on the ultimate issue of the bar's negligence.
No, because it is character evidence about the bouncers' tendency toward inaction.
Yes, because it is evidence of the organization's routine practice in responding to altercations. (correct answer)
Yes, because it is a statement against interest made by the bar's employees, the bouncers.