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 Pennsylvania, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is recognized and can be applied in civil litigation. Bifurcation is governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow a court to order a separate trial for one or more issues within a larger case. This procedural tool is used at the discretion of the court to ensure fairness and efficiency in the trial process. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, a Pennsylvania court may decide to bifurcate the proceedings to prevent the jury from being prejudiced by evidence of a defendant's wealth before determining liability. The goal is to ensure that the determination of liability is based solely on the evidence relevant to the alleged wrongdoing, and not influenced by the potential size of a punitive award. The decision to bifurcate a trial is typically made on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as judicial economy, potential prejudice, and the interests of justice.