Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in Kansas

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

“Under our present rules of civil procedure a judge in the 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, counterclaim or of any separate issue.” (See Hindman v. Shepard (1970) 205 Kan. 207, 216.)

“Separate trials should be conducted upon a showing of actual prejudice stemming from a joint trial and, in such a circumstance, the trial court should not join the complaints or, if the complaints have been joined, should sever the cases for trial.” (See State v. Boyd (2006) 281 Kan. 70, 81.)

“A separate trial of an issue, such as a right to possession, may be ordered by the trial judge in the furtherance of convenience and justice or to avoid prejudice and undue delay when the claims of the parties reasonably justify such action.” (See Guy Pine, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (1968) 201 Kan. 371, 373.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

The rules for separate trials are governed under subsection 60-242 of the Kansas Statutes.

“For convenience, to avoid prejudice or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial in the county where the action is pending, or a different county in the judicial district, of one or more separate issues, claims, counterclaims, cross-claims or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any right to a jury trial.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-242(b).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

“A motion asking for issues to be tried separately at an early date rests largely in the discretion of the trial court.” (See Guy Pine, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (1968) 201 Kan. 371, 373.)

A trial court ordering bifurcation of a trial will not be overturned unless an abuse of discretion is shown. (See “co” Betts v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 236 Kan. 108, 116.)

“A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if:

1. no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court;
2. it is based on an error of law; or
3. it is based on an error of fact.”

(See Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC (2019) 56 Kan. App. 2d 1317, 1324; Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co. (2015) 302 Kan. 66, 74, 350 P.3d 1071.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

It is well settled that “when an adequate showing is made by the defendant, the court might consider granting a bifurcated trial on the issue of punitive damages in order to avoid any prejudice to the defendant on the issue of liability.” (See Tetuan v. A.H. Robins Co. (1987) 241 Kan. 441, 487.)

It is also well settled that trials can be bifurcated “by dividing the liability and damage portions into separate proceedings." (See Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp. (2005) 280 Kan. 447, 449.)