Presumptions
i)    true presumptions are rebuttable
(1)    effect
(a)    rebutting evidence => presumption disappears
(b)    no rebutting evidence => presumption conclusively established
(2)    examples
(a)    death from cirx. of extreme peril
(b)    missing 7 years = dead
(c)    mailbox presumption if properly addressed & postage
(d)    bailee was negligent if left stuff w/ him in good condition & got back damaged
(e)    course & scope (of work) presumptions
(f)    warning heeded if put on label of something
(3)    procedures
(a)    P puts on basic facts giving rise to presumption
(b)    burden of production shifts to opponent to put on some facts that tend to rebut the presumption
(c)    if burden of production met, then burden of persuasion shifts back
(d)    once rebutted, cbc analysis if presumption remains as some evidence
ii)    irrebuttable presumptions (not true)
(1)    a person w/ a disability deprived of his civil rights, there is conclusive presumption of dmgs of $100
(2)    Black lung presump.  if minor for 10+ years and has black lung there is a rebuttable presumption that he got black lung from work
iii)    persuasion burden shifting presumptions
(1)    presumption shifted BO production and entire BOpersuasion to other party
(2)    Powell knows of no other cirx. in which this occurs except in the gift case in Bogart
iv)    permissible inferences (not true presumptions)
(1)    hypo  D left a sponge in P; med mal case; E is that the surgeon-D was in charge, but there is T from the P that if a sponge was left in a body it can only be b/c of the negligence of the surgeon; this is res ipsa
(2)    you prove control and type of injury that wouldn’t have occurred but for negligence, that is not a true presumption b/c doesn’t est. negligence unless/until contrary E put on
(a)    allows you to get past directed verdict – can get to jury
(b)    you get res ipsa instruction
(c)    spoliation is an inference just like res ipsa
(d)    judicial notice is an inference (you may consider xxx as evidence) and you have inferences in criminal cases