Navigating Separate Trials and Bifurcation in Civil Litigation: A State-by-State Guide
Posted December 5, 2025
)
Civil litigation can often be a complex and multifaceted process. One aspect of this complexity is the concept of separate trials or bifurcation. This legal strategy can be crucial in ensuring a fair trial by dividing a case into more manageable, distinct parts. Understanding this process and how it varies across different jurisdictions is vital for anyone involved in litigation.
What is Bifurcation in Civil Litigation?
Bifurcation refers to the process of splitting a trial into two or more parts to address different issues separately. This approach keeps the lawsuit intact but allows a judge or jury to focus on specific issues without the influence of unrelated matters.
Why Bifurcate a Trial?
The primary goal of bifurcation is to prevent prejudice or emotional influence on the jury. For instance, in cases involving punitive or exemplary damages, details about a defendant's net worth or a company's revenue can unfairly influence a jury's decision on liability issues. By bifurcating the trial, the jury only considers this financial information if they first find the defendant liable.
Examples of Bifurcation in Different States
The approach to bifurcation can vary significantly from one state to another. Each jurisdiction has its own rules and standards for when and how a trial can be bifurcated.
California: Known for its liberal approach to bifurcation, particularly in complex civil cases involving multiple parties or issues.
New York: More conservative in granting bifurcation, often requiring a strong showing that it will serve the interests of justice and efficiency.
Texas: Has specific rules governing bifurcation, especially in cases involving punitive damages, to ensure fairness in the assessment of liability and damages.