Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals 41N.Y.2d 386, 393 N.Y.S.2d 341, 361 N.E.2d 991 (1977) Halloran was a mechanic.  He was working with a can of refrigerant made by Virginia when it exploded and he was injured.  He sued for product liability. Virginia argued that Halloran heated the can up too hot, ignoring the warning labels on the product and making himself contributorily negligent. At trial, Virginia attempted to introduce testimony that Halloran had in the past, often used a heater to heat the can. Halloran objected on the grounds that evidence was inadmissible. Virginia argued that the evidence was admissible under FRE 406 to show that Halloran had a habit of heating the cans of refrigerant. The Trial Judge excluded the evidence. The Trial Judge found that Halloran didn't always heat the cans, therefore it wasn't a habit. The Trial Court found for Halloran.  Virginia appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed.  Virginia appealed. The New York Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The New York Supreme Court found that Virginia isn't required to show that Halloran always heated the cans, only that he did so on a regular basis. If Virginia could show that Halloran heated cans on a 'regular' basis, then the evidence would be admissible and Halloran could argue how much weight to give it. It was left up to the Trial Court to determine how many instances of conduct Virginia would have to show in order for Halloran's conduct to be considered 'regular'.