The plaintiffs brought a motion at the start of trial to strike the jury notice served by the defendant, arguing the issues surrounding the plaintiff's severe brain injury were too complex for a jury.
The defendant opposed the motion or alternatively sought bifurcation.
The court found the scientific evidence and damages calculations related to the brain injury were unduly complex and better suited for a judge alone.
However, the court determined the liability issues were straightforward enough for a jury.
The motion was allowed in part, and the trial was bifurcated with liability to be tried by a jury and damages by a judge alone.
