Kakridis v. Hyundai Group

Massachusetts cases apparently have consistently excluded evidence of a person’s habit or custom to prove that the person acted in that manner on the date in question.1 Maillet v. ATF-Davidson Co., 407 Mass. 185, 199 (1990), citing Figureido v. Hamill, 385 Mass. 1003 (1982). Pursuant to that rule, the plaintiffs’ evidence of the decedent’s custom in adjusting his car mirrors and in looking in same before changing lanes would be inadmissible to prove that he did so at the time of the accident in issue.

Further, in this case, even if evidence of habit were to be ruled admissible, it is unclear…