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 Dakota, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is recognized and can be applied in civil litigation. Bifurcation is a procedural tool that allows a court to divide a trial into two or more parts to address different issues separately. This is particularly useful when certain evidence may prejudice the jury regarding issues that are distinct from one another. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, South Dakota courts may order a bifurcated trial to ensure that evidence of a defendant's net worth or financial status does not influence the jury's decision on the fundamental question of liability. The decision to bifurcate a trial is typically at the discretion of the court and is made in the interest of justice, efficiency, or convenience. The relevant rules governing bifurcation in South Dakota would be found in the state's rules of civil procedure, and the specific application would depend on the facts of the case and the judge's determination.