Prima Facie Evidence

Prima facie evidence

Prima facie evidence is a central element in German civil procedure law. It serves to simplify the burden of proof and enables a party to infer the occurrence of a specific legal consequence from an established typical set of circumstances, without having to prove every single factual element individually and comprehensively. Prima facie evidence constitutes a special form of circumstantial evidence and is particularly relevant in situations where, based on general life experience, certain causal courses can be regularly assumed.

Legal basis and general significance

Although prima facie evidence is not explicitly codified in law, its application arises from the general rules of evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) and is widely recognized in case law. From a legal dogmatic perspective, prima facie evidence falls within the assessment of evidence (§ 286 ZPO). Whether it can be transferred to other areas of law, such as administrative or criminal law, is assessed differently in individual cases.

Requirements for prima facie evidence

Typical sequence of events

The basis for the assumption of prima facie evidence is an established typical sequence of events (“experience principle”). The facts must reflect a situation in which, according to general life experience, a particular course of events regularly occurs. The courts must therefore determine that, based on the likelihood of events, one fact leads to another circumstance.

Undisputed or proven anchor fact

It must be proven or undisputed that the so-called anchor fact—i.e., the typical starting point for the course of events—exists. If this requirement is not met, prima facie evidence does not apply.

No atypical course of events

The counter-evidence can be provided by proving an atypical course of events. The presumption lapses if the opposing party substantively demonstrates and proves that, in the specific case, the course of events differed from the typical experience.

Distinction from other forms of proof

Prima facie evidence differs from full proof and from circumstantial evidence in terms of its scope and probative value:

• Full proof: For full proof, the court must be convinced of the truth of a factual assertion.
• Circumstantial evidence: Here, conclusions are drawn from individual proven indications to a main fact to be proven, but without applying general experience principles in the sense of a typical sequence.
• Standard of proof and burden of proof: Prima facie evidence shifts the burden of proof for a deviating (atypical) course of events to the opposing party, while the obligation to present and prove the anchor fact remains with the claimant.

Areas of application

Prima facie evidence is applied in various areas of private law:

Traffic accidents

A classic example is the so-called rear-end collision. If one vehicle collides with another from behind, general experience suggests that the first appearance is that the driver at the rear either failed to maintain the necessary safe distance or did not reduce their speed appropriately (e.g., OLG Hamm, judgment dated 30.12.2008, ref. 6 U 174/08).

Product liability

In product liability law, prima facie evidence may apply if a specific typical defect regularly leads to damage that has occurred in the specific case.

Medical liability

In cases of typical medical errors, such as the failure to perform required checks, prima facie evidence may be applied in favor of the patient if the damage typically results from the error.

Traffic safety obligations

If traffic safety obligations are breached and a typical damage results, prima facie evidence generally applies to the causality of the breach of duty for the damage.

Limits of prima facie evidence

Prima facie evidence is subject to the following limitations:

• Not in cases of unusual circumstances: If there is no typical life situation or if there are serious doubts about the typical course, prima facie evidence is excluded.
• Rebuttal by counter-evidence: Prima facie evidence can be refuted by convincing presentation and, if necessary, proof of an atypical sequence of events (“counter-evidence”).
• No application where there are several equally probable causes: Prima facie evidence does not apply if it cannot be ruled out that the damage could also be due to other equally typical causes.

Evidentiary value and shifting of the burden of proof

Through prima facie evidence, a party receives a procedural advantage: the burden of proof for an atypical sequence or the improbability of the typical course shifts to the opposing party. This makes pursuing legal claims easier, particularly in cases of evidentiary hardship.

Case law and development

Case law has specified prima facie evidence in numerous decisions. The circumstances of the individual case as well as current life and traffic experience are always decisive. In particular, the civil courts regularly specify the requirements for the typicality of the sequence of events and the possibilities for counter-evidence.

Summary

Prima facie evidence is a fundamental consequence of the general rules of evidence and serves to prevent evidentiary hardship and increase efficiency in proceedings. By applying general experience principles, it enables typical causal relationships to be deemed proven without the need for full proof of all details, as long as an atypical course is not plausibly demonstrated.

Literature and further references

• MüKoZPO/Prütting, ZPO, § 286 Rn. 143 ff.
• Zöller/Greger, ZPO, § 286 Rn. 18-24.
• Palandt/Grüneberg, BGB, Introduction Rn. 109 f.

Note: This article explains the term “prima facie evidence” solely from a general legal perspective and does not replace individual legal advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

When is prima facie evidence applied in civil law?

Prima facie evidence (also referred to as prima facie proof) is applied in civil law whenever there is a typical sequence of events that, according to common experience, strongly suggests a specific causal link. This evidentiary facilitation is particularly relevant when the party bearing the immediate burden of proof cannot fully prove the causal course, and a complete demonstration would be impossible or unreasonable due to the particularities of the individual case. Typical areas of application include traffic accidents (for example, the well-established sequence in rear-end collisions), medical liability, or product liability cases. Here, general rules of experience allow the conclusion that, where certain indications are present, the alleged conduct is likely attributable to the alleged cause. However, prima facie evidence only applies if the actual circumstances do not admit reasonable doubt about this typical sequence of events.

What are the requirements for rebutting prima facie evidence?

To rebut (dispel) prima facie evidence, it is not sufficient to simply cast general doubt on the typical course of events. The opponent must present and, if necessary, prove concrete facts that show serious possibilities of a different course of events. Mere denial or the abstract suggestion of an alternative cause is generally not enough. Substantiated statements are required, showing that in the specific case the course of events could have been atypical, for example, due to weather conditions, technical defects, or special circumstances of the individual case. With regard to the standard of proof, the usual criterion of a preponderance of probability, as in civil procedure law, applies.

To what extent can prima facie evidence become significant in employment law?

In employment law, prima facie evidence is particularly relevant in cases of contractual breaches of duty and in instances of discrimination. For example, if an employee is repeatedly late, intent or negligence can be presumed in the context of the typical workday, unless plausible atypical reasons—such as extraordinary traffic disruptions—are presented. Also, in connection with § 22 AGG (General Equal Treatment Act), prima facie evidence can be used to establish a link between discriminatory actions and a discrimination characteristic, with the employer then bearing the burden of rebuttal.

What is the significance of prima facie evidence in medical liability law?

In medical liability law, prima facie evidence plays an important role, particularly in cases of gross treatment errors or typical failures in diagnosis and information. If the patient can demonstrate that the damage incurred is generally typical for the erroneous medical conduct, prima facie evidence is assumed in favor of the patient. This means it is presumed that the damage would not have occurred without the medical error. It is then up to the physician to prove that the damage would have occurred even with due care or was due to another cause.

Can prima facie evidence be applied in criminal proceedings?

While prima facie evidence is recognized in criminal proceedings, it must be handled much more cautiously than in civil proceedings. Due to the principle of “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, for the accused) and the requirement for full proof for a conviction, typical sequences of events can only be used as indications to be evaluated as part of an overall assessment. Pure prima facie evidence is therefore not sufficient in criminal law to serve alone as a basis for conviction. However, it can be significant in circumstantial judgments when combined with other evidence.

What role does prima facie evidence play in traffic law, especially in rear-end collisions?

In traffic law, and particularly in rear-end collisions, prima facie evidence is considered the most important rule of evidence. If a rear-end collision occurs, according to the consistent case law of the Federal Court of Justice, the presumption is that the rear-ending driver either failed to maintain the required safe distance or was momentarily inattentive. The very frequent application of prima facie evidence in practice means that the rear-ending driver must prove that the accident was due to extraordinary, atypical circumstances, such as the leading vehicle braking suddenly and without good cause. In the absence of such special circumstances, liability remains with the rear-ending driver.

What effect does the application of prima facie evidence have on the allocation of the burden of proof?

By applying prima facie evidence, the burden of proof for the facts giving rise to liability is eased for the person relying on the typical sequence of events. Specifically, this means that the party asserting the claim does not have to prove every single circumstance in detail, but can rely on recognized principles of experience. The burden of proof then shifts to the opposing party, who must now undermine the prima facie evidence by presenting and proving circumstances indicating an untypical—and therefore not experience-based—course of events.

Are there scenarios in which prima facie evidence is excluded?

Yes, prima facie evidence is excluded if the established factual framework does not allow a conclusion about a typical sequence of events according to general experience principles. This is the case, for example, when several different causal connections with equal probability may underlie the event or essential facts are unclear or unproven. Also, in atypical situations or so-called evidentiary emergencies, prima facie evidence may fail. Furthermore, in areas where strict standards of proof apply (e.g., criminal law), it is not applied, or only very restrictively.