Short answer. By weighing the policy behind each one. Section 5 of Rule 131 says that where presumptions in a civil action are inconsistent, the one founded on weightier policy considerations applies, and if the considerations are equally weighty, neither presumption applies — the conflict is resolved by reasoning, not by convenience.
What the law says
If presumptions are inconsistent the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight neither presumption applies.
Rule 131, Section 5 — Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. Read the full provision →
What a presumption actually does procedurally
Before reaching the conflict rule, it helps to know what a presumption does in the first place. Section 5 explains that in a civil action not otherwise covered by law or the Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. It is a burden-shifting device — it does not itself decide the case, but it forces the disfavored party to come forward with contrary evidence or risk losing on that point.
What happens when two presumptions collide
Some fact patterns trigger more than one presumption pointing in different directions — for instance, a document might be presumed genuine under one rule while another presumption favors a different party's version of events. Rather than leaving that unresolved or letting whichever presumption a litigant invokes first win by default, Section 5 gives a tiebreaker: the presumption resting on the weightier considerations of policy controls.
Why this is a judgment call, not a formula
The rule does not supply a checklist for weighing one policy against another — that comparison is left to the court based on the reasons each presumption exists in the first place. A presumption protecting the stability of land titles, for example, may reflect different underlying policy concerns than one protecting a party who lacked access to certain records, and deciding which concern is weightier in a given case requires understanding why each presumption was adopted, not just what it says.
The rarer outcome: neither presumption applies
Section 5 also covers the case where the competing policies are genuinely balanced — in that situation, the rule does not pick a winner by default; it says neither presumption applies. That outcome pushes the case back to the ordinary rules on burden of proof and the actual evidence in the record, rather than letting a mechanical presumption substitute for evidence when the policy reasons behind it do not clearly favor either side, leaving the parties to prove their claims the ordinary way instead.
Related provisions
- Rule 131, Section 5 — Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings
- Rule 131, Section 4 — No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
- Rule 131, Section 6 — Presumption against an accused in criminal cases