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 Connecticut, the practice of bifurcation or holding separate trials is recognized and can be utilized under certain circumstances. The decision to bifurcate a trial is at the discretion of the court and is governed by the Connecticut Practice Book, which outlines the rules and procedures for civil litigation in the state. Bifurcation may be considered when it serves the interests of justice, promotes judicial efficiency, or when it helps to prevent prejudice that could arise from a jury hearing all issues at once. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, a Connecticut court may order a separate trial to ensure that the jury's decision on liability is not influenced by evidence of a defendant's financial status, which is relevant only to the determination of punitive damages. The court will typically weigh the benefits of bifurcation against any potential inconvenience or unfairness to the parties involved before making a decision to separate the issues for trial.