Opinion ID: 1992358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Bifurcation Order.

Text: Our holding on the helmet issue makes it unnecessary for us to rule on the defendants' challenge to the order bifurcating the trial. We point out, however, the danger in bifurcating a trial under our comparative fault law. As we noted earlier, fault includes an unreasonable failure to mitigate damages. If a party asserts this element of fault in combination with an alleged fault that caused the occurrence which led to the injury, the fact finder must follow two separate chains of causation to determine the plaintiff's aggregate fault. The first chain involves causal factors leading to the occurrence that caused the injury. So the first chain involves the liability phase of the case. The second and independent chain leads directly to damages. The second chain does not involve the occurrence that caused the injury. The second chain can only be determined by the fact finder who is to consider the damage phase of the litigation. It is therefore essential in order to combine these separate assessments of fault into a single aggregate percentage of fault that the same trier of fact consider both the liability issues and the damage issues. Bifurcation in these circumstances would be prejudicial to the party relying on the mitigation of damages defense and would therefore constitute an abuse of discretion. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 186 (In any action the court may, for convenience or to avoid prejudice, order a separate trial of any claim. ...); Briner v. Hyslop, 337 N.W.2d 858, 870 (Iowa 1983) (scope of review on bifurcation is abuse of discretion).