LORINDA CHOU VS DEER USA INC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2649 Hearing Date: January 21, 2022 Dept: 29

Moot. Taken off calendar.

Case Number: ****2649    Hearing Date: March 04, 2020    Dept: 29

Chou v. Deer USA, Inc.

Motion to Bifurcate Trial, filed by Defendants Deer USA, Inc. and Chun Zhang, is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides that the Court may order that the trial of any issue shall precede the trial of any other issue “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby.”

Here, the Court concludes that judicial economy will not be served by ordering separate trials on liability and damages. In the master calendar context, ordering bifurcation presents logistical challenges for the Court and results in judicial inefficiency. From the Court’s perspective, it is more efficient to try liability and damages in a single trial, even when the liability issues are relatively simple and damages issues complex.

Defendants have not presented any facts that would justify departure from the general rule here. Defendants’ arguments regarding prejudice would apply in virtually every personal injury case. Any risk of prejudice can be ameliorated with a jury instruction guarding against bias.

More significantly, there are factual issues that are integral to both liability and damages. The events leading up to Plaintiff’s fall are obviously relevant to liability and are also relevant to the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and whether the injuries were caused by the alleged negligence. Plaintiff has identified several witnesses who would have to testify in both the liability and damages phases. Where facts essential to proof of liability are also essential to proof of damages, bifurcation is inappropriate. Cook v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal. App. 3d 832, 834.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.