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 South Carolina, 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 cases where evidence on one issue might unfairly influence the jury's decision on another. For instance, in cases involving punitive damages, South Carolina courts may order a bifurcated trial to prevent financial evidence, such as a defendant's net worth, from affecting the jury's determination of liability. The decision to bifurcate a trial is typically made in the interests of justice, efficiency, or convenience, and is governed by the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 42(b) specifically grants judges the authority to order separate trials for distinct issues to avoid prejudice or to expedite and economize the trial process.