Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2020-01163198, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Bifurcation

Defendants Mel’s Sewing and Fabric Center and Perry Lytton’s motion to bifurcate the trial on the issues of liability and causation/damages is DENIED.

The court declines to rule on the objection to the declaration of Steve Gausewitz on the grounds that it is not material to the disposition of the Motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides in pertinent part: “The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time.”

Section 1048, subdivision (b) provides: “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 cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.”

“[T]rial courts have broad discretion to determine the order of proof in the interests of judicial economy.” (Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504.) Separate trial of the liability issue is desirable “to avoid wasting court time in cases where the plaintiff loses on the liability issue, to promote settlements where the plaintiff wins on the liability issue, and to afford a more logical presentation of the evidence, thus simplifying the issues for the jury.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888, fn. 8.) “The court, however, over the objection of a party, cannot order the separate trial of an issue of liability when because of the nature of the case it is necessary to prove the plaintiff’s damages in order to establish that liability.” (Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 385–86.)

Bifurcation is not appropriate here because the issues of liability and damages are intertwined.

Defendants have shown that the liability issue turns on whether there was a dangerous condition. Specifically, whether the alleged misplaced electrical cord caused Plaintiff’s injuries, whether Defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous condition with sufficient time to remedy it; and if so, whether Defendants failed to remedy the condition or warn of it. Defendants’ have shown that it is undisputed that no one witnessed what caused Plaintiff to fall, and there are no witnesses who saw the alleged misplaced electrical cord in the aisleway at any time prior to Plaintiff’s fall. (Reply, p. 2, lns. 27-28 and p. 3, ln. 1.) Since there are no witnesses and there is a dispute as to how and where Plaintiff tripped, Plaintiff contends that the “nature and extent of her broken femur substantially contribute to answering the questions about the nature of the fall, and it would be difficult separating out the evidence and testimony regarding those issues.” (Opp., p. 5, lns. 22-24.) Plaintiff anticipates that “Defendants’ experts will undoubtedly testify that the femur was broken when Marilyn fell of her own accord” while as “Plaintiff’s experts, will testify that the injury is more akin to tripping on an object such as an electrical cord, and likely occurred because of the accelerated force and pressure from the pull and release of the ironing cord on Marilyn’s instep when she went to take her fifth step toward the ironing board from her desk.” (Opp., p. 5, lns. 24-27 and p. 6, lns. 1-2.) Therefore, Plaintiff has shown that for her to prove liability, there will need to be a discussion of the biomechanics of her injury. Therefore, damages are intertwined with liability making bifurcation inappropriate.

Further, bifurcation will not promote judicial efficiency and economy since testimony of witnesses that bears on both liability and damages would need to be presented twice. 

Accordingly, the Motion to bifurcate is DENIED.

Moving Defendants to give notice.