Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in Arkansas

What Is a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial?

Background

“The purpose of Rule 42(b) is to further convenience, avoid delay and prejudice, and serve the needs of justice. The primary concern is efficient judicial administration, as long as no party suffers prejudice by the bifurcation.” (Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alter (1992) 309 Ark. 426, 436 citing Hunter v. McDaniel Bros. Const. Co. (1981) 274 Ark. 178, 623 S.W.2d 196.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Under Ark. R. Civ. P. 42(b), “[a] circuit court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim or issue.” (Cureton v. Stout (2020) 609 S.W.3d 435, 438 citing Ark. R. Civ. P. 42(b).)

“However, when separate trials are ordered, the case as a whole remains intact and usually results in but one judgment. (Cureton, supra, 609 S.W.3d at 438 citing Barnhart v. City of Fayetteville (1994) 316 Ark. 742.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Absent an abuse of discretion, the Trial Court's decision regarding bifurcation will not be reversed.” (Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alter (1992) 309 Ark. 426, 436 citing Transit Homes Inc. v. Bellamy (1984) 282 Ark. 453, 669 S.W.2d 7.)

The Court’s Decision

“ARCP 42(b) specifically provides that a trial court may bifurcate any separate issue presented in the case. This rule was considered in the case of Hunter v. McDaniel Bros. Const. Co., 274 Ark. 178, 623 S.W.2d 196 (1981).” (Transit Homes, Inc. v. Bellamy (1984) 282 Ark. 453, 457-58.)

“In Hunter [the Court] specifically held that it was within the discretion of the trial court to separate the liability phase from the damage phase of a trial. In Hunter [the Court] stated: ‘The purpose of Rule 42(b) is to further convenience, avoid delay and prejudice, and serve the needs of justice.’ [The court] then held that absent an abuse of discretion the decision of the trial court would not be disturbed on appeal.” (Transit Homes, Inc. v. Bellamy (1984) 282 Ark. 453, 457-58.)

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope