Hollywood v. Kehoe
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
The plaintiff in one of the actions asked the court for directions on how to schedule trial of two related claims from the same collision. The court had to apply the recent changes to Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which deal with splitting a trial into stages.
What the Court Decided
The court wanted to avoid two judges or juries reaching different conclusions on who was responsible, so it ordered a joint trial on liability. Damages were a different matter: the parties share no witnesses on that issue, separate hearings could save costs, and a long joint jury trial would be hard to schedule. Damages will therefore be heard separately.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You are one of several plaintiffs in related actions from the same collision.
- ✓You want to understand how courts apply the bifurcation rule to related injury claims.
- ✓You are weighing the efficiency of a joint liability trial against separate damages trials.
Key Takeaways
- Joint liability trials can avoid inconsistent findings across related actions.
- Damages are tried separately where there are no common witnesses and joint scheduling would be impractical.
- The 2026 amendments to Rule 6.1.01 on bifurcation are now being applied.