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 Tennessee, 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, enabling the judge or jury to consider separate issues independently. This is particularly useful when certain evidence might prejudice the jury regarding an issue that is distinct from the primary matter of liability. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, Tennessee courts may order a bifurcated trial to ensure that financial evidence, such as a defendant's net worth or a company's revenue, does not influence the jury's decision on the defendant's liability. The bifurcation process is governed by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and a party may request bifurcation by filing a motion. The decision to bifurcate a trial is at the discretion of the court, which will consider factors such as judicial economy, the potential for prejudice, and the convenience of the parties.