Georgia statutory evidence presumptions in truck crash disputes

Presumption from failure to produce evidence under O.C.G.A. 24-14-22

The first condition in O.C.G.A. 24-14-22 concerns a party that withholds evidence. It applies when a party "has evidence in such party's power and within such party's reach" by which the party may repel a claim or charge against that party, but the party "omits to produce it." The first condition therefore has two parts: the evidence lies in the party's power and within the party's reach, and the party omits to produce it. In a truck accident claim heard under Georgia's Evidence Code, that condition can reach a truck driver or any other party, provided both parts are present. The presumption that results under O.C.G.A. 24-14-22 may be rebutted.^[1]

The second condition in O.C.G.A. 24-14-22 applies when a party "has more certain and satisfactory evidence in his or her power but relies on that which is of a weaker and inferior nature." It compares two bodies of evidence, the stronger evidence in the party's power and the weaker evidence on which the party relies. For truck drivers who are parties in a dispute governed by Georgia's Evidence Code, the second condition is met as written when both of its elements are present. Under either condition, the section provides that "a presumption arises that the charge or claim against such party is well founded," and the same sentence of the statute adds that this presumption may be rebutted.^[1]

Court decisions decide how the conditions in O.C.G.A. 24-14-22 apply to particular evidence, such as when evidence is within a party's power or reach, and this entry does not cover those decisions. Within the statutory text, the presumption concerns the claim or charge made against the party who withholds evidence or relies on weaker evidence. The rebuttal clause in O.C.G.A. 24-14-22 applies to that presumption whether it arises against a truck driver or against another party, and the text states that the presumption may be rebutted.^[1]

Presumptions of law, presumptions of fact and rebuttal under O.C.G.A. 24-14-20 and 24-14-21

O.C.G.A. 24-14-20 opens with the statement that "Presumptions are either of law or of fact." It then provides that "Presumptions of law are conclusions and inferences which the law draws from given facts." Under the same section, presumptions of fact are exclusively for the jury to decide, using the ordinary test of human experience. The official code hierarchy places O.C.G.A. 24-14-20 in Article 2, Presumptions and Estoppel, of Chapter 14. When a truck crash case under Georgia's Evidence Code is tried to a jury, O.C.G.A. 24-14-20 assigns presumptions of fact to that jury.^[3]

O.C.G.A. 24-14-21 turns to presumptions of law as O.C.G.A. 24-14-20 describes them and provides that certain of them "may be rebutted by proof." The examples the section gives are the presumption of innocence, in some cases the presumption of guilt, the presumption of continuance of life for seven years, and the presumption of a mental state once proved to exist. The section then extends the same treatment to all similar presumptions. Where a presumption of law named in O.C.G.A. 24-14-21, or one similar to it, arises in a truck accident lawsuit governed by Georgia's Evidence Code, the section states that it may be rebutted by proof. O.C.G.A. 24-14-21 also sits within Article 2, Presumptions and Estoppel, according to its official code hierarchy.^[4][3]

Burden of proof under O.C.G.A. 24-14-1

O.C.G.A. 24-14-1 provides that "The burden of proof generally lies upon the party who is asserting or affirming a fact" and adds a second element, that the fact be one "to the existence of whose case or defense the proof of such fact is essential." Read together, the general rule places the burden on a party when that party asserts or affirms the fact and when proof of the fact is essential to the existence of the party's own case or defense. The word generally in the statute frames this allocation as a general rule. When a truck driver is a party in a case governed by Georgia's Evidence Code, the burden of proof under O.C.G.A. 24-14-1 generally lies on that driver for a fact the driver asserts or affirms when proof of that fact is essential to the driver's own case or defense. The official code hierarchy places O.C.G.A. 24-14-1 in Article 1, General Provisions, of Chapter 14, Proof Generally, in Title 24, Evidence.^[2]

The second sentence of O.C.G.A. 24-14-1 governs negative facts. If a negation or negative affirmation is essential to a party's case or defense, "the proof of such negation or negative affirmation shall lie on the party so affirming it." In a truck crash lawsuit under Georgia's Evidence Code, a truck driver or any other party who affirms a negation essential to its case or defense carries the proof of that negation under O.C.G.A. 24-14-1, while the burden of proof on affirmed facts generally lies as the first sentence of that section states.^[2]

Presumption from failure to answer a business letter under O.C.G.A. 24-14-23

O.C.G.A. 24-14-23 provides that "In the ordinary course of business, when good faith requires an answer, it is the duty of the party receiving a letter from another to answer within a reasonable time." The ordinary course of business condition and the good faith condition attach to the duty in that sentence, so the duty to answer within a reasonable time arises for a letter received in the ordinary course of business when good faith requires an answer. If the receiving party does not answer, the section provides that the party "shall be presumed to admit the propriety of the acts mentioned in the letter of the party's correspondent and to adopt them."^[5]

The official code hierarchy places O.C.G.A. 24-14-23 in Article 2, Presumptions and Estoppel. Where a letter about a truck accident passes between parties in the ordinary course of business and good faith requires an answer, O.C.G.A. 24-14-23 states the duty to answer within a reasonable time and the presumption of admission and adoption that follows a failure to answer. A truck driver who receives a letter that good faith requires answering, in the ordinary course of business, is subject to the same duty and presumption under O.C.G.A. 24-14-23 as any other receiving party.^[5]

Enactment and derivation of O.C.G.A. 24-14-22

The history line on the official page for O.C.G.A. 24-14-22 shows that the section was enacted as Code 1981, Section 24-14-22, by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, Section 2 (HB 24). The notes on that official page state that former Code Section 24-4-422 "contained comparable provisions to this Code section, as effective January 1, 2013". According to the same notes, former Code Section 24-4-422 was derived from nineteenth-century Georgia court decisions dated from 1883 to 1889, and this entry does not describe the holdings of those decisions. The current text of O.C.G.A. 24-14-22 states that the presumption it creates may be rebutted.^[1]

This entry describes only the statutory text of O.C.G.A. 24-14-22, whose presumption may be rebutted, together with O.C.G.A. 24-14-1, 24-14-20, 24-14-21 and 24-14-23, as that text read on 2026-11-06, for truck crash disputes and other civil matters to which Georgia's Evidence Code applies. Within that text, the presumptions of law named in O.C.G.A. 24-14-21 may be rebutted by proof, and the letter presumption of O.C.G.A. 24-14-23 applies to a letter received in the ordinary course of business where good faith requires an answer.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

See also: Flanagan Law truck accident practice

See also

On related publications

• Georgia truck-crash law notes (truckaccidentlawyer.wiki)
• Liability and comparative fault in Georgia (caraccidentlawyers.wiki)