§ RULE 5-301 PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS
RULE 5-301. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS
(a) Effect. Unless otherwise provided by statute or by these rules, in all civil actions a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. If that party introduces evidence tending to disprove the presumed fact, the presumption will retain the effect of creating a question to be decided by the trier of fact unless the court concludes that such evidence is legally insufficient or is so conclusive that it rebuts the presumption as a matter of law.
(b) Inconsistent Presumptions. If two presumptions arise which conflict with each other, the court shall apply the one that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy and logic. If the underlying considerations are of equal weight, the presumptions shall be disregarded.
Committee note: Section (a) of the Rule is intended to codify the approach to presumptions explicated in Grier v. Rosenberg, 213 Md. 248 (1957). The treatment of presumptions under this Rule is thus distinguishable from the so-called “Thayer-Wigmore bursting bubble” approach of Federal Rule 301 and the “Morgan-Type” presumption embodied by Uniform Rule 301. This Rule applies only to rebuttable evidentiary presumptions that have the effect of shifting the burden of production. It does not apply to (1) evidence that gives rise only to a permissible inference, which has the effect only of meeting the proponent's burden of production but not shifting that burden to the opposing party, (2) irrebuttable presumptions, which are rules of substantive law, or (3) rebuttable presumptions that are merely restatements of the allocation of the ultimate burden of persuasion to the opposing party, such as the presumption of innocence in a criminal case.
Source: This Rule is derived in part from Uniform Rule of Evidence 301.