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 Rhode Island, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is recognized and can be applied at the discretion of the court. Bifurcation is a procedural tool that allows a judge to divide a trial into two or more parts, enabling the jury to consider separate issues independently. This is particularly useful in complex cases where certain evidence might unfairly prejudice the jury if presented all at once. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, Rhode Island courts may order a bifurcated trial to ensure that the jury first determines liability based solely on the relevant facts of the case, without being influenced by the defendant's financial status. Only if the defendant is found liable would the trial proceed to the second phase, where the jury would consider evidence pertaining to the defendant's net worth for the purpose of assessing punitive damages. This approach aligns with the state's interest in fair and impartial trials, ensuring that each issue is considered on its own merits without undue influence from unrelated evidence.