“A trial should be bifurcated only if the issues are so distinct that trial of each alone would not result in injustice.” (See Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd. Partnership (1998) 334 S.C. 96, 108; Fortunev. Gibson (1991) 304 S.C. 279, 403 S.E.2d 674.)
“Where evidence relevant to the issues of both liability and damages overlap, bifurcation is inappropriate.” (See id.)
“In determining whether to order separate trials or a single proceeding, caution should be taken by the trial court to assure that, under the circumstances of the case, a joint trial will not deprive a party of his right to a full jury trial of legal issues." (See Gardner v. Travis (1994) 316 S.C. 315, 318.)
“The same caution ought also to be taken where separate trials are ordered. Neither party should be deprived of the right to have a jury determine the legal issues.” (See id.)
“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters in issue in the action; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (See S.C. R. Civ. P. 42(a).)
“The 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, 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, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution or as given by a statute of the State.” (See S.C. R. Civ. P. 42(b).)
“Trial judges have discretion as to whether to bifurcate a trial." (See Durham v. Vinson (2004) 360 S.C. 639, 644 n. 2, 602 S.E.2d 760, 763 n. 2; Wright v. Hiester Const. Co., Inc. (2010) 389 S.C. 504, 516.)
Furthermore, “this court must review a trial judge's decision to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages under an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard.” (See Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd. P'ship (1998) 334 S.C. 96, 108, 512 S.E.2d 510, 516; Winthrop Univ. Trs. for S.C. v. Roofing (2016) 418 S.C. 142, 166; Giles v. Parker (1991) 304 S.C. 69, 403 S.E.2d 130 [bifurcation of trial was well within trial judge's discretion].)
“An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law." (See Newton v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals for Beaufort Cnty. (2011) 396 S.C. 112, 116, 719 S.E.2d 282, 284; Dewberry 334 Meeting St. LLC v. City of Charleston, No. 2021-UP-360, at *5 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2021).)
It is well settled that “the imposition of a bifurcation requirement to prevent prejudice is consistent with the power of this Court to supervise the order of presentation of evidence and other procedural matters.” (See State v. Cross (2019) 427 S.C. 465, 481.)
It is also well settled that “if the trial court were to find the potential for prejudice too severe, it could order bifurcation of the issues of liability and damages pursuant to SCRCP, Rule 42(b).” (See Doe ex rel. Roe v. Orangeburg County School District No. 2 (1999) 335 S.C. 556, 559.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
