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 Kentucky, 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 often used to prevent prejudice that might arise from a jury hearing evidence on all issues at once. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, Kentucky courts may order a bifurcated trial to ensure that evidence of a defendant's wealth does not influence the jury's decision on liability. The decision to bifurcate a trial is typically at the discretion of the court and is guided by considerations of fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 42.02 provides the authority for a court to order separate trials for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize the process. The rule allows the court to order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues.