When is a presumption destroyed in civil cases?

In civil cases, a presumption is considered destroyed when the adversary produces evidence that rebuts it. The purpose of a presumption is to establish a certain fact or legal conclusion until evidence is presented to counter it. When the opposing party introduces evidence that contradicts the presumption, it effectively undermines the assumption's validity, shifting the burden of proof back to the party that relied on the presumption.

This concept is essential because it ensures a fair trial process, allowing both sides the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments. The rebuttal evidence does not need to conclusively disprove the presumption but should create enough doubt or provide a contrary view that challenges the presumption's validity.

The other options do not accurately reflect the nature of how presumptions work in civil law. For instance, confirming the presumption (the first option) does not destroy it; rather, it reinforces it. An automatic destruction (the third option) would not properly account for the dynamics of evidence and its evaluation in court. Lastly, the fourth option contradicts the fundamental nature of presumptions as they are designed to be rebutted and not held indefinitely.