Torts - Cases, Principles, and Institutions Fifth Edition, 2016a

Witt & Tani, TCPI 4. Negligence Standard
That a legislative presumption of one fact from evidence of another may not
constitute a denial of due process of law or a denial of the equal protection of the
law it is only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact
proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof
of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. So, also,
it must not, under guise of regulating the presentation of evidence, operate to
preclude the party from the right to present his defense to the main fact thus
presumed.
If a legislative provision not unreasonable in itself prescribing a rule of evidence, in
either criminal or civil cases, does not shut out from the party affected a reasonable
opportunity to submit to the jury in his defense all of the facts bearing upon the
issue, there is no ground for holding that due process of law has been denied him.
Id. at 42-43. Two decades after Turnipseed, however, the Court invalidated a similar state statute
passed by the Georgia Legislature. See W. & Atl. R.R. v. Henderson, 279 U.S. 639 (1929). The
statute in question in Henderson provided, in relevant part:
A railroad company shall be liable for any damages done to persons . . . by the
running of the locomotives, or cars, or other machinery of such company unless the
company shall make it appear that their agents have exercised all ordinary and
reasonable care and diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the
company.
Id. at 640 (quoting § 2780 of the Georgia Civil Code). The Court held that the foregoing statute
violated the Due Process Clause:
Legislation declaring that proof of one fact or group of facts shall constitute prima
facie evidence of an ultimate fact in issue is valid if there is a rational connection
between what is proved and what is to be inferred. A prima facie presumption casts
upon the person against whom it is applied the duty of going forward with his
evidence on the particular point to which the presumption relates. A statute creating
a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it
violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Legislative fiat may
not take the place of fact in the judicial determination of issues involving life, liberty
or property. . . .
Appellee relies principally upon Mobile, J. & K. C. R. R. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S.
35. . . . That case is essentially different from this one. Each of the state enactments
raises a presumption from the fact of injury caused by the running of locomotives
or cars. The Mississippi statute created merely a temporary inference of fact that
vanished upon the introduction of opposing evidence. . . .
The presumption raised by § 2780 is unreasonable and arbitrary and violates the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . .
Nearly fifty years after these two decisions, the Court held that Congress could reduce plaintiffs’
burden of proof without violating any constitutional provisions. For example, in Usery v. Turner
244