A mother sued a city and three city police officers for causing the death of her schizophrenic and previously suicidal son after she summoned them to her home with a 911 call. The son was then barricaded in his bedroom, refusing to leave. The officers forced opened the bedroom door and fired Tasers at him, and he was pronounced dead the next day. The plaintiff claimed that inadequate training by the city in training officers to deal with mentally ill people caused his death. The city sought to bifurcate the plaintiff's claims, with the claims against the officers being tried first, for the purpose of avoiding the burden of discovery. The court ruled that, since the mother's claim was a very specific one of inadequate training on dealing with mentally ill persons, discovery on that issue would not constitute a "significant burden" on the city, so the city's motion for bifurcation, combined with a stay of discovery, was denied. Wilson v. City of Chicago, No. 07C-1682, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60658 (N.D. Ill.).
     Trial court did not abuse its discretion in bifurcating the trial of state law claims from federal civil rights claims. Landsman v. Village of Hancock, 745 N.Y.S.2d 258 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
       322:147 Jury properly awarded $1 in nominal damages and $20,000 in punitive damages (later reduced to $15,000) against officer who allegedly used excessive force against arrestee during booking process; trial court improperly dismissed claims against city following trial of claims against individual officers, since plaintiff could pursue city's liability even if he was barred from receiving anything more than $1 in damages against municipality. Amato v. City of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., #97-9623, 170 F.3d 311 (2nd Cir. 1999).
     310:148 Trial court erred in bifurcating trial on liability in excessive force lawsuit from trial on damages and in excluding, from liability phase, evidence on severity of plaintiff's alleged injuries; severity of plaintiff's injuries was relevant in determining whether excessive force was used at all. Martin v. Heideman, 106 F.3d 1308 (6th Cir. 1997).
     311:165 Separate trials were required in claims against officers and city when evidence of officers' alleged past misconduct would be admissible to prove claims against city, but inadmissible in claims against officers. Daniels v. Loizzo, 178 F.R.D. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
     280:53 Plaintiff's claims against police officer and against county should be tried separately when evidence of county's customs and policies, including past alleged incidents of police misconduct, would be prejudicial to officer's defense Dawson v. Prince George's County, 896 F.Supp. 537 (D.Md 1995). [Cross-references: Administrative Liability: Training, Supervision; Dogs]
     {N/R} Because of parties' agreement to bifurcate trial of claims against individual officers and city, the trial court properly refused to allow the plaintiff, during the trial of claims against the officers, to try to present evidence of other alleged incidents of police misconduct Watkins v. Schriver, 52 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 1995).
     Court orders separate trials of civil rights claims against individual officers and claims against municipal entities, since vindication of individuals might make trial of claims against city unnecessary; individual offices were entitled to separate representation from that provided to the city Ricciuti v. NY City Transit Authority, 796 F.Supp. 84 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).