Separate trials or bifurcation of a trial keeps a lawsuit intact, but allows the judge or jury to hear and determine one or more issues without trying all of the issues at the same time. This is often done to avoid unnecessarily prejudicing or inflaming the jury with evidence related to one issue that is not related to another issue. For example, courts sometimes order separate trials or bifurcation of a trial when a party is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, and the court does not want evidence of the person’s net worth or the entity’s valuation or revenue—which are relevant to punitive damages—to influence the jury’s decision on whether the person or entity is liable for the breach of contract, negligence, or other claim. In such a bifurcated trial, the jury does not hear evidence of the net worth, valuation, or revenue unless it first finds the defendant liable on the underlying claim.
In Texas, bifurcation of a trial is a procedural tool that allows a court to divide a trial into two or more separate phases. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 174 allows a court to order separate trials for any claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims, or upon any separate issues within a claim, when it is deemed that separation is in the interests of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. Bifurcation is often used in cases where a party seeks punitive damages, as it prevents the jury from hearing evidence about a defendant's financial status until after they have determined liability on the underlying claim. This approach helps to ensure that the jury's decision on liability is based solely on the evidence related to the alleged wrongdoing, rather than being influenced by the potential impact of the damages sought.
