Rule 301 Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally

Pre-2017 Rule 301(a) was based on U.R.E. 301(a), except the word “civil” was added in the first line. The Committee rejected F.R.E. 301. F.R.E. 301 was adopted by Congress as a substitute for the proposal of the United States Supreme Court Advisory Committee. The Federal Rule as adopted by Congress embraces the “bursting bubble” rule. See Usery v. Turner, 428 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 2882, 49 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1976). The rule adopted is similar to the rule proposed by the United States Supreme Court Advisory Committee. The Committee was aware of the holding in Bennett v. Andree, Del. Super., 264 A.2d 353, aff’d, Del. Supr., 270 A.2d 173 (1970) and believes that its holding is not in conflict with the rule set forth herein.

Pre-2017 Rule 301(b) tracked U.R.E. 301(b). For prior Delaware case illustrating the law covered by this rule, see Hill v. McKay, Del. Super., 113 A. 804 (1921). D.R.E. 301 was amended in 2017 in response to the 2011 restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The amendment is intended to be stylistic only. The pre-2017 “Comment” to D.R.E. 301 was revised only as necessary to reflect the 2017 amendments. There is no intent to change any result in ruling on evidence admissibility.