Opinion ID: 2051795
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bifurcation of the Issues at Trial

Text: The plaintiff argues that the trial justice erred by bifurcating the trial on the issues of liability and damages because it prevented the jury from receiving evidence on punitive damages. The plaintiff relies on this Court's decision in Palmisano v. Toth, 624 A.2d 314 (R.I. 1993), and argues that defendant s' failure to make a pretrial motion to strike the punitive damages count required the trial justice to try the liability and damages issues together. The defendants argue that plaintiff has misread Palmisano and that the trial justice properly exercised his discretion to manage the issues at trial. We agree. Rule 42(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure grants a trial justice broad discretion to separate the issues at trial. DiLuglio v. Providence Auto Body, Inc., 755 A.2d 757, 776 (R.I.2000). The purpose of the rule is to preserve judicial economy, but this Court approves of bifurcation when to do otherwise may invite confusion or unfair prejudice. See Rule 42(b); Corrente v. Fitchburg Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 557 A.2d 859, 861-62 (R.I.1989) (requiring that the trial justice bifurcate bad faith claim from contract claim to prevent unfair prejudice to defendant). Therefore, plaintiff must show that the trial justice abused his discretion for his first argument to prevail. The plaintiff has made no such showing. In failing to meet his burden, the plaintiff misreads our holding in Palmisano. In Palmisano, we held that when a plaintiff seeks to engage in pretrial discovery aimed at revealing a defendant's private financial information for purposes of supporting his or her punitive damages claim, the best way to balance the countervailing interests of the parties is to require the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that a viable issue exists for awarding punitive damages during a pretrial hearing. Palmisano, 624 A.2d at 320. Only then may the plaintiff proceed with the proposed discovery. See id. However, we have made equally clear that a Palmisano hearing is recommended only when a plaintiff has made a demand for discovery of a defendant's financial condition. Mark v. Congregation Mishkon Tefiloh, 745 A.2d 777, 781 (R.I.2000). In this case, plaintiff did not make a pretrial inquiry about defendants' finances; thus, the trial justice's duty to consider a Palmisano hearing was never triggered. The plaintiff's claim that the trial justice had a duty to incorporate a Palmisano hearing into the trial is wholly without merit, because plaintiff sought only to advise the jury of his intention to pursue punitive damages and not to discover defendants' financial situation. Furthermore, in Mark, we stated that when a plaintiff forgoes pretrial discovery into the issue of a defendant's financial condition, the trial justice, of course, may control the presentation of evidence and opening statements relative to a punitive damage claim by entertaining a motion in limine in advance of trial or entering appropriate orders in the course of a pretrial conference conducted pursuant to Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Mark, 745 A.2d at 781 n. 3. Finally, plaintiff argues that the bifurcated trial deprived him of his Rule 50 right to be fully heard on the issue of punitive damages. However, plaintiff's right to be heard on punitive damages cannot be triggered until he has first established defendants' liability. [4] Thus, the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in deciding to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages.