What Is a Bifurcated Trial in New York Personal Injury Lawsuits?

“I was involved in a fender bender several years ago and am a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit. My insurance company lawyer explained to me that the trial is done in two parts. What does that mean?”

If your attorney told you that your case will be tried in two parts, they are referring to a bifurcated trial (also called a split trial). Under New York Law, trial courts frequently divide personal injury litigation into two distinct phases: liability (determining who was at fault) and damages (determining how much money should be awarded).

Understanding how a bifurcated trial functions, why courts utilize them, and how New York judicial departments approach them is critical for any litigant navigating a personal injury action.

Understanding the Two Phases of Bifurcated Trials

In a standard bifurcated action, the legal issues are severed so that the jury evaluates fault before ever hearing evidence regarding bodily harm.

Phase 1: The Liability Trial

The initial phase focuses exclusively on responsibility for the accident. During liability testimony, the jury only hears evidence demonstrating how the incident occurred. This includes eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, police reports, expert reconstruction, and traffic conditions.

The trial judge instructs the jury on the relevant rules of the road or applicable standards of care. At the conclusion of Phase 1, the court provides the jury with a written verdict sheet containing specific interrogatories. The jury must answer whether the defendant was negligent, whether that negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, and whether the plaintiff shared comparative fault.

Under Pattern Jury Instruction (PJI) 1:28, the judge explicitly instructs the jury:

“You are being asked to decide only the question of fault. Should there be mention of an injury you will consider that reference only in deciding how the accident happened and not for any other purpose.”

If the jury finds that the defendant bears no fault, the case ends immediately, and no damages are awarded.

Phase 2: The Damages Trial

If the jury determines that the defendant is responsible for the accident, the proceeding advances to the damages phase. Under Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR § 202.42(b) and (c)), the damages trial ordinarily takes place immediately following the liability verdict before the same judge and jury. However, if the court finds it impracticable, a different jury may be impaneled at a later date.

In Phase 2, medical experts testify, treatment records are introduced, and the jury calculates fair compensation for past and future pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses. As set forth in PJI 1:20, the court instructs the jury that liability has already been decided and that their sole function is to assess the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Why New York Courts Use Bifurcated Trials

The authority to order a bifurcated trial is grounded in Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 603 and CPLR 4011, which grant trial judges broad discretion to determine the sequence in which issues are tried. Under 22 NYCRR § 202.42(a), bifurcation is explicitly encouraged in personal injury actions to simplify issues and achieve a fair and expeditious resolution.

Bifurcation serves two fundamental purposes:

1. Elimination of Jury Bias and Sympathy: The primary objective of a split trial is to prevent severe physical injuries from emotionally swaying the jury during their deliberations on fault. If a plaintiff suffered devastating injuries, hearing extensive medical testimony could cause a jury to hold a defendant liable out of sympathy rather than proof of negligence. Isolating liability ensures an impartial evaluation of fault.
2. Judicial Efficiency and Cost Reduction: Trying liability first saves significant time and financial resources. Medical expert testimony is expensive and time-consuming. If the jury returns a defense verdict on liability, neither party needs to incur the expense of calling doctors to testify. Furthermore, a liability verdict against a defendant frequently prompts an out-of-court settlement before Phase 2 begins.

Departmental Practice and Exceptions to Bifurcation

Historically, bench and bar perceived a strict contrast between judicial departments in New York. Practitioners often noted that the Second Judicial Department (which encompasses Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, and surrounding suburban counties) strictly favored bifurcated trials, whereas the First Judicial Department (Manhattan and the Bronx) more frequently conducted unified (or unitary) trials where liability and damages are tried together.

In a unified trial, the jury hears evidence concerning the accident mechanism and the resulting physical injuries simultaneously. At the end of the trial, the jury receives written questions covering both fault and monetary damages.

In a bifurcated trial, the jury may not hear nor consider the plaintiff’s damages. At the conclusion of a liability-only trial, the jury receives written questions asking them to assess fault only. Then during the damages portion of the trial, the jury considers the plaintiff’s damages only without considering fault.

However, the Appellate Division, Second Department clarified in Castro v. Malia Realty, LLC, 177 A.D.3d 58 (2d Dept. 2019), that its practice should not be interpreted as an inflexible mandate for bifurcation. Instead, trial courts across all departments must exercise sound discretion under 22 NYCRR § 202.42(a) based on the specific facts of each case. This uniform court rule does not mandate a bifurcated trial in any Judicial Department. The rule only encourages bifurcated trials.

When Is a Unified Trial Required?

A party opposing bifurcation can successfully request a unified trial by demonstrating that the nature and extent of the injuries are inextricably intertwined with the issue of liability. Common exceptions where courts order a unified trial include:

• Injuries Relevant to Force of Impact: Where medical evidence regarding physical injuries is necessary to prove the speed of a vehicle, the force of impact, or how an accident occurred. See Bennett v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 22 N.Y.2d 742 (1968).
• Claims of Amnesia: Where a plaintiff suffers amnesia as a result of the accident injuries and seeks a lesser burden of proof under the Schechter v. Klanfer doctrine. See Johnstone-Penn v. Stout, 63 A.D.3d 1713 (4th Dept. 2009).
• Pre-Impact Terror and Intertwined Damages: Cases where claims for pre-impact terror or complex medical causation cannot be separated from proof of fault. See Zboack v. Gietz, 162 A.D.3d 1636 (4th Dept. 2018).

In New York personal injury actions, bifurcated trials remain the standard procedural mechanism to ensure that fault is decided fairly without the influence of sympathy. Whether your case proceeds as a split or unified trial depends on the specific facts, the nature of the injuries, and the discretion of the trial judge.

By James Santner, Esq.

Navigating personal injury lawsuits requires experienced trial counsel familiar with complex court procedures. If you have questions about a pending claim in Staten Island or New York, contact an experienced Staten Island personal injury lawyer to discuss your legal rights.