§ 600 [Presumptions and Inferences Defined]

This rule explains the difference between a presumption and an inference in a court case. A presumption is a fact the law says must be assumed once certain other facts are proven. For example, if one fact is shown to be true, the law may require the court to accept a related fact as true too, even without direct proof of that second fact. A presumption itself is not evidence. It is a rule that tells the court what to assume once the right facts are on the table.

An inference works differently. It is a conclusion that a judge or jury can reasonably draw from the facts presented, but they are not required to draw it. If certain facts are proven, people are allowed to use common sense and reasoning to connect those facts to another likely fact. Unlike a presumption, nobody is forced to accept an inference. It is simply a logical guess that makes sense based on the evidence.

For people involved in a case, this matters because it affects how facts get proven. If a presumption applies, the other side may need to bring evidence to challenge or overcome that assumed fact. If only an inference is possible, the judge or jury has more freedom to decide whether or not to accept it.