Bifurcation is not without its risks, however. Without the damages component in the liability trial, a plaintiff is not able to fully convey the toll the incident at issue has had on their life.
Returning to the auto accident example, perhaps the accident at issue occurred at a low speed, but the plaintiff required multiple surgeries. Without being able to go into detail about their surgeries, the plaintiff in a bifurcated trial is only able to say they were involved in a low speed accident.
The plaintiff can only make a general statement about suffering injuries, which may not sway a jury given the appearance of the accident. In addition, if the first trial for liability had a jury, it is possible that a new jury will be picked for the second trial, one which is not as favorable to the client as the first one.
Now the client has paid for two different trials and their case has been drawn out even longer, but they have ended up with a small reward. Bifurcation is a unique tool that is often ignored by both clients and attorneys. It can save money yet keep a case moving to trial at the same time. Bifurcation requires a deep understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of a case. Even if the option of bifurcation is not selected, both the attorney and the client will be in a better position for an eventual trial after having taken the time to evaluate their case.
Because of that, attorneys and clients would do well to consider if bifurcation is the right course of action. Relevant considerations include 1 whether the issues are significantly different from one another in the two cases; 2 whether the severable issues require different witnesses and documentary proof; 3 any prejudice to the non-moving party if the motion is granted; and 4 any prejudice to the moving party if the motion is denied.
Lombardo , Civ. Action cv E. Wade , Va. Bifurcation has been found to be appropriate in the following circumstances, to name just a few examples:. Severance of claims can occur in any number of scenarios where judicial economy, convenience to witnesses, or other factors suggest that severance would be appropriate.
LexisNexis may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.
You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre or via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our Privacy Policy.
Create a secure password at least eight characters. Confirm your password. Civil Litigation. Research Pod Case s : Duggan Litigation guardian of v. Appeal by the plaintiffs from an order bifurcating the issues of damages and liability. The underlying action sought damages for personal injuries suffered by an infant plaintiff in a fall from an apartment balcony. Neither side served a jury notice. The plaintiffs appealed on the basis that Rule 6.
The Divisional Court found that Rule 6. In the instance of a trial by judge alone, the court retained inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate without the consent of the parties. The plaintiffs appealed. HELD: Appeal allowed. Nothing in the wording of Rule 6.
0コメント