Home Table of Contents

WPI 24.05 Presumptions—Rebuttable Mandatory—Which Affect the Burden of Proof (When Presumed Fac...

6 WAPRAC WPI 24.05Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 24.05 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part III. Issues—Burden of Proof
Chapter 24. Presumptions
WPI 24.05 Presumptions—Rebuttable Mandatory—Which Affect the Burden of Proof (When Presumed Fact Constitutes a Jury Question)
[If you find] [Because](insert the basic facts), the law presumes(insert the presumed fact), and you are bound by that presumption unless you find [by a preponderance of the evidence] [by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence] that(insert the contrary of presumption).
NOTE ON USE
This instruction is proper only for rebuttable mandatory presumptions that affect the burden of proof, when the presumed fact has been challenged and constitutes a jury question. It should therefore not be given if the court can rule on the presumed fact or facts as a matter of law. The bracketed phrase “if you find” should be used if the basic facts are also a jury question. The bracketed word “because” should be used if the basic facts are admitted or can otherwise be determined to exist as a matter of law. In applying this instruction, the user should pick out the appropriate burden of proof necessary to rebut the presumption and then give a definition of that burden. See WPI Chapter 21 (Burden of Proof) for appropriate definitions.
An example of the use of this instruction is as follows:
If you find that deceased died of a gunshot wound, the law presumes that his death was not suicidal (or was accidental), and you are bound by that presumption unless you find by a preponderance of the evidence that his death was suicidal.
COMMENT
For a collection of Washington cases identifying presumptions that shift the burden of proof, see Tegland, 5 Washington Practice, Evidence Law and Practice §§ 301.15, 301.16 (6th ed.). Presumptions that must be overcome by “clear and convincing” evidence or “clear, cogent, and convincing” evidence shift the burden of proof upon the presumed fact. See Tegland, supra (setting forth examples of such presumptions). For a discussion of presumptions that are difficult to classify, see the Comment to WPI 24.03 (Presumptions—Rebuttable Mandatory—Which Only Affect the Burden of Going Forward with the Evidence (When Presumed Fact Constitutes a Jury Question)).
The opinion in Burrier v. Mutual. Life Ins. Co., 63 Wn.2d 266, 275, 387 P.2d 58 (1963), could be read to say that the reluctance of the court to create a double burden by giving effect to a presumption directed against the party who has the burden of proof does not apply to the presumption against suicide. However, the trend seems to be against such double burdens. See the Comment to WPI 24.03 (Presumptions—Rebuttable Mandatory—Which Only Affect the Burden of Going Forward with the Evidence (When Presumed Fact Constitutes a Jury Question)).
[Current as of September 2018.]
End of Document