prima facie evidence

noun · Anscheinsbeweis

Prima facie evidence maps to the Anscheinsbeweis, the Beweis des ersten Anscheins: a figure of free evaluation that lets the court infer cause or fault from a typical course of events founded on experience. It does not lower the Beweismaß, and it does not shift the Beweislast; the opponent needs only to shake it by showing the serious possibility of an atypical course.

Which translation, when

Figur der Beweiswürdigungwhat it is: the Anscheinsbeweis is not a separate means of evidence but a mode of inference inside the free evaluation of § 286 ZPO, unwritten and recognised in settled practice; it requires an experience-based rule, a typical course of events pointing to a cause or to fault, the rear-end collision being the classic case, with the case law drawing limits such as a preceding lane change; it fails where individually shaped conduct, not typicality, is in issue.

volles Maß bleibtthe difference from the English figure: the Anscheinsbeweis does not lower the standard of proof; the experience rule must be strong enough to carry the full conviction of § 286 ZPO although not every detail is established, whereas the common-law prima facie case marks only a threshold, evidence sufficient to call for an answer and to shift the evidential burden, so equating the two overstates the English figure or understates the German one.

Erschütterung, keine Umkehrthe counter: the opponent does not have to prove the contrary; it suffices to assert and, where contested, prove facts founding the serious possibility of an atypical course, and once the appearance is shaken the favoured party is back to full proof; the Beweislast never moved, so the Anscheinsbeweis is an easing of proof, not a Beweislastumkehr.

Why

Prima facie evidence is rendered Anscheinsbeweis, and German usage itself keeps prima-facie-Beweis and Beweis des ersten Anscheins as synonyms, so the words travel well; what does not travel is the mechanics. The Anscheinsbeweis is no separate means of evidence but a mode of inference inside the free evaluation of § 286 ZPO, unwritten in the code and recognised in settled practice. It presupposes an experience-based rule: a typical course of events which, on general experience, points from a fixed starting situation to a cause or to fault, the rear-end collision being the schoolbook case, with the case law drawing limits, for instance where a lane change preceded the collision, and refusing the figure altogether where individually shaped conduct rather than typicality is in issue. Two boundary lines carry the legal weight. First, the measure: the Anscheinsbeweis does not lower the Beweismaß; on the prevailing view the experience rule must be strong enough to found the full conviction of the court although not every detail of the individual events is established, whereas the common-law prima facie case marks a threshold, evidence sufficient to call for an answer and to shift the evidential burden, so the two figures do different work. Second, the burden: the Anscheinsbeweis shifts no Beweislast; the opponent need not prove the contrary but only assert and, where contested, prove circumstances founding the serious possibility of an atypical course, and once the appearance is shaken the favoured party must carry the full proof again. So the safe rendering is Anscheinsbeweis, read as an easing within the evaluation, with the threshold function of the English phrase kept on its own side of the text.

Typical mistakes

The Anscheinsbeweis works inside the free evaluation of § 286 ZPO and does not lower the Beweismaß, so treating it as a mere threshold in the English manner understates what it must carry.
It shifts no Beweislast; shaking it requires only the serious possibility of an atypical course, not proof of the contrary, and full proof then revives, so rendering it as a Beweislastumkehr misstates the counter.
It presupposes a typical course of events founded on experience and fails for individually shaped conduct, so the figure must not be stretched to every likely-looking inference.

What matters

Rendering a passage on inference from typical events, the translation should use Anscheinsbeweis, keep it inside the free evaluation with the full conviction intact, mark the counter as Erschütterung rather than proof of the contrary, and leave the threshold sense of prima facie to the common-law side.

Authority

§ 286 ZPO

What the machine misses

Machine output leaves prima facie evidence half-translated as Prima-facie-Beweis, which German usage accepts, but it then treats the figure as a mere threshold in the common-law manner. That loses the German mechanics: an inference inside § 286 ZPO that must still carry the full conviction, shaken by the serious possibility of an atypical course, with no shift of the Beweislast. The rendering keeps the label and mistakes what the figure does.

See what the machine does with this clause →

Examples

prima facie evidence of fault	ein Anscheinsbeweis für das Verschulden
to rebut the prima facie case	den Anscheinsbeweis erschüttern
a typical course of events	ein typischer Geschehensablauf
by prima facie evidence	im Wege des Anscheinsbeweises

More notes on these sections

evidence Beweis

standard of proof Beweismaß

hearsay Zeugnis vom Hörensagen