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 Massachusetts, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is recognized and can be applied at the discretion of the court. Bifurcation is the process by which a judge may divide a trial into two or more parts, allowing the jury to consider certain issues separately from others. This is particularly useful in complex cases where different issues may require distinct considerations, such as liability and damages. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, a Massachusetts court may order a bifurcated trial to prevent the jury from being prejudiced by evidence of a defendant's wealth or financial status during the liability phase of the trial. The goal is to ensure a fair trial by having the jury first determine whether the defendant is liable for the underlying claim without being influenced by factors that are only relevant to the subsequent determination of damages. The use of bifurcation is governed by the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and is subject to the judge's assessment of whether it serves the interests of justice and judicial efficiency in a particular case.