PROVISIONS If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable.

RULE 131 Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving
a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any
Burden of Proof and Presumptions
traffic regulation.

SECTION 1 . Burden of proof. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present

Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the
defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or
amount of evidence required by law.
substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof
is indispensable in his occupation or business.
Sec. 2 . Conclusive presumptions. The following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
Article 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
(a)Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such
1. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
2. Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
permitted to falsify it:
3. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

(b)The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of 4. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
5. Order or act of competent public authority.
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

Sec. 3 . Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(b)That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers
are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove
that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.

(c)That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act; Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that
(d)That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.

(y)That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and
ordinary nature habits of life;

Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if
the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he
had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice
within the next preceding two months.