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 Ohio, bifurcation of a trial is a procedural tool that allows a court to divide a trial into two or more separate phases. Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 42(B) provides the legal basis for bifurcation, stating that the court, for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, issues, or parties. Bifurcation is often used in cases where the evidence on one issue may unfairly influence the jury on another issue. For example, in cases seeking punitive damages, the court may bifurcate the proceedings to prevent the jury from hearing evidence of a defendant's financial status during the liability phase of the trial. The jury would only consider this evidence if they first find the defendant liable. The decision to bifurcate a trial is at the discretion of the court and is made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances and potential for prejudice.