Poe v. Cook et al

Filing 57

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs Motion to Bifurcate 45 is DENIED. Signed on 6/10/19 by Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan. (dsg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PENDLETON DIVISION

NORMAN POE,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00062-SU
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN D. COOK, an individual; and
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.,
a Virginia corporation,
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
OF ARIZONA, a foreign corporation, and
ZAKEE WATSON, an individual,
Third-Party Defendants.
SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Norman Poe brings this negligence action to recover damages for
injuries he sustained in a collision between two semitrucks. Plaintiff and third-party
defendants Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC (“Swift”) and Zakee Watson have
Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

moved to bifurcate the trial on plaintiff’s negligence claim and the various property
damages claims alleged by Old Dominion Freight Lines, Inc. (“Old Dominion”) and
Swift. The Court heard oral argument on May 22, 2019. For the following reasons,
the Court DENIES the Motion to Bifurcate.
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit arises from a set of multi-vehicle collisions that occurred east of
Baker City, OR in January of 2015. Defendant Ryan Cook was driving a semitruck
for Old Dominion and lost control of the vehicle, causing the vehicle to jack-knife and
block the eastbound lane.

Watson was driving a semitruck for Swift, in which

plaintiff was an unrestrained passenger. Watson also lost control of his truck and
collided with the Old Dominion vehicle in the lane that was blocked by Cook, and
Watson’s truck was then struck by one or more additional semitrucks. Plaintiff was
injured as a result of these collisions and Old Dominion sustained property damage
to its vehicle and cargo.
Plaintiff filed a negligence claim for personal injuries against Cook and Old
Dominion in this Court in January of 2017. In their answer, Cook and Old Dominion
responded with a counterclaim for property damage against plaintiff and a thirdparty claim against Swift and Watson for the same.

Plaintiff and third-party

defendants have now filed a motion to bifurcate the trial between the personal injury
claim and property damages claims.

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), “the court may order a separate
trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, or third-party claims” for
“convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize” the proceedings. The
drafters of the Federal Rules did not intend the routine bifurcation of trials. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 42(b) advisory committee’s note to 1966 amendment. The moving party has
the burden to prove that bifurcation is appropriate. Benson Tower Condo. Owners
Ass’n v. Victaulic Co., 150 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1208 (D. Or. 2015). The court has broad,
discretionary authority to bifurcate claims or issues. Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252,
1261 (9th Cir. 1982).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has moved to bifurcate his personal injury claim from the property
damages claims. Plaintiff asserts that bifurcation is required to avoid prejudice and
confusing the jury. Specifically, plaintiff argues that absent bifurcation, the jury
would hear irrelevant evidence, the trial would run afoul of the ORS 656.595(2)
prohibition against pleading or admitting into evidence the existence of workers’
compensation payments, and that these harms cannot be cured through jury
instructions. Plaintiff proposes that a jury be empaneled to hear plaintiff’s case,
deliberate, and submit a verdict regarding plaintiff, but then continue and hear the
property damages claims, deliberate, and submit a separate verdict on those claims.
Plaintiff explains that this approach has the added advantage of encouraging
settlement if the jury initially finds for plaintiff.

Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

I disagree. As an initial matter, it would be improper for the Court to decide
the bifurcation issue based on the possibility of encouraging settlement. That issue
aside, there is nothing uniquely complex about having a crossclaim and third-party
claim for property damage within the same trial as a claim for negligence. Jurors are
routinely expected to hear cases involving difficult and complicated civil matters.
There will be common questions of law and fact since the same facts will inform the
potential liability on all claims, i.e., the various collisions, allocation of liability, and
resulting damages, and the same experts will likely be needed.
With respect to plaintiff’s specifics arguments for bifurcation, the existence of
claims irrelevant to plaintiff’s claims is not inherently prejudicial and does not
warrant bifurcation. As for the workers’ compensation issue, that issue is also the
subject

of

plaintiff’s

partial

motion

for

summary

judgment.

Regardless of the resolution of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff
presents no argument as to why limiting instructions would be insufficient to guard
against the jury’s consideration of workers’ compensation payments in their
assessment of the case. Thus, the Court believes that any confusion or prejudice
resulting from the workers’ compensation issue can sufficiently be addressed through
limiting instructions. Even if there is some potential lingering prejudice, it would not
be sufficient to warrant bifurcation given the relative simplicity of this case compared
with others that jurors are regularly expected to consider.
\\\
\\\

Page 4 – OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate (doc. 45) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2019.
/s/ Patricia Sullivan____________
PATRICIA SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 – OPINION AND ORDER