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 New Jersey, the concept of bifurcation in trials is recognized and can be applied under the discretion of the court. Bifurcation separates a trial into two or more parts, allowing the judge or jury to consider different issues at separate times. This procedural tool is particularly useful in complex cases where certain evidence might prejudice the jury if presented all at once. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, New Jersey courts may order a separate trial to determine liability before considering the defendant's financial status, which is relevant to the assessment of punitive damages. The rationale is to prevent the jury from being influenced by the wealth or financial details of a party when deciding on the fundamental question of liability. The decision to bifurcate a trial is typically made in the interests of justice, efficiency, or convenience, and is governed by the New Jersey Rules of Court, specifically Rule 4:38-2, which provides the legal framework for such decisions.