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 Idaho, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation of a trial is recognized and can be utilized under certain circumstances. Bifurcation is a procedural tool that allows a court to divide a trial into two or more parts, enabling the judge or jury to consider separate issues independently. This is particularly useful in cases where evidence on one issue might unfairly prejudice the jury's consideration of another issue. For instance, in cases involving claims for punitive damages, Idaho courts may order a bifurcated trial to prevent the jury from hearing evidence about a defendant's net worth or financial status until after they have determined liability on the underlying claim. This approach helps to ensure that the decision on liability is based solely on the relevant facts and is not influenced by the potential impact of punitive damages. The decision to bifurcate a trial is typically at the discretion of the court and is made in the interest of justice, efficiency, or convenience to the parties.