Every rebuttable presumption is either:
(1) A presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence and requiring the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact, unless and until evidence sufficient to support a finding of its nonexistence is introduced, in which event the presumption disappears.
(2) A presumption affecting the burden of proof that imposes upon the party against whom it operates the burden of proof concerning the nonexistence of the presumed fact.
Two Types of Presumptions: Florida law, unlike the Federal Rules, recognizes two distinct types of rebuttable presumptions, which have very different effects on a case.
(1) Presumption Affecting the Burden of Production (The "Bursting Bubble"):
This is the most common type and works like the federal rule. It requires the jury to assume a fact is true until the opposing party introduces some credible evidence to the contrary. Once that happens, the presumption "bursts" and disappears completely from the case. The jury is never told about it. The original party still has the ultimate burden of proving their case.
(2) Presumption Affecting the Burden of Proof:
This is a much stronger type of presumption, usually created by the legislature to advance a specific public policy. When this presumption applies, it doesn't just shift the burden of producing some evidence; it shifts the entire burden of proof to the opposing party. This means the opposing party must now convince the jury that the presumed fact is not true.
Example: The presumption that a child born to a married woman is the child of her husband is a strong presumption affecting the burden of proof. The husband would have the burden of proving he is not the father.
