Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally

(a) Effect. In a civil case, unless a statute or these Rules provide otherwise,

the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of proving

that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than the

existence of the presumed fact.

(b) Inconsistent Presumptions. If presumptions are inconsistent, the

presumption founded upon weightier policy considerations applies. If policy

considerations are of equal weight, then neither presumption applies.

Comment

Pre-2017 Rule 301(a) was based on U.R.E. 301(a), except the word “civil”

was added in the first line.

The Committee rejected F.R.E. 301. F.R.E. 301 was adopted by Congress as

a substitute for the proposal of the United States Supreme Court Advisory

Committee. The Federal Rule as adopted by Congress embraces the “bursting

bubble” rule. See Usery v. Turner, 428 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 2882, 49 L. Ed. 2d

752 (1976).

The rule adopted is similar to the rule proposed by the United States Supreme

Court Advisory Committee.

The Committee was aware of the holding in Bennett v. Andree, Del. Super.,

264 A.2d 353, aff’d, Del. Supr., 270 A.2d 173 (1970) and believes that its

holding is not in conflict with the rule set forth herein.

Pre-2017 Rule 301(b) tracked U.R.E. 301(b).

For prior Delaware case illustrating the law covered by this rule, see Hill v.

McKay, Del. Super., 113 A. 804 (1921).

D.R.E. 301 was amended in 2017 in response to the 2011 restyling of the

Federal Rules of Evidence. The amendment is intended to be stylistic only.

The pre-2017 “Comment” to D.R.E. 301 was revised only as necessary to

reflect the 2017 amendments. There is no intent to change any result in

ruling on evidence admissibility.