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 Georgia, bifurcation of a trial is a procedural tool that allows a court to divide a trial into two or more separate phases. This is governed by the Georgia Civil Practice Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 9-11-42(b), which grants judges the discretion to order separate trials for the sake of convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize the trial process. Bifurcation is commonly used in cases where there is a need to separate issues for clarity or to prevent prejudicial evidence from influencing a jury's decision on unrelated matters. For instance, in cases involving punitive damages, a court may order a separate trial to determine liability before considering the defendant's financial status for the purpose of assessing punitive damages. This ensures that the jury's decision on liability is based solely on the evidence related to the alleged wrongdoing, without being swayed by the defendant's ability to pay.