In reliance on CCP §§598 and 1048, Defendant State of California (Caltrans) requests a bifurcation of the liability and damage phases of the trial in the above referenced matter. In addition, it requests that the design immunity defense be tried before the other issues in the trial. CCP §598 provides that the court may order certain issues tried before others “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby.”
(This section is generally relied upon for bifurcation—i.e., to try issues of liability before damages issues. It serves the salutary purpose of avoiding wasting time and money, and prevents possible prejudice to a defendant where a jury might look past liability to compensate a plaintiff through sympathy for his or her damages.) Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) §12:414.
The State of California is a Defendant as is Defendant driver Herrera. The Court is no
Hearing Date
September 01, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
In reliance on CCP §§598 and 1048, Defendant State of California (Caltrans) requests a bifurcation of the liability and damage phases of the trial in the above referenced matter. In addition, it requests that the design immunity defense be tried before the other issues in the trial. CCP §598 provides that the court may order certain issues tried before others “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby.”
(This section is generally relied upon for bifurcation—i.e., to try issues of liability before damages issues. It serves the salutary purpose of avoiding wasting time and money, and prevents possible prejudice to a defendant where a jury might look past liability to compensate a plaintiff through sympathy for his or her damages.) Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) §12:414.
The State of California is a Defendant as is Defendant driver Herrera. The Court is no