(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delays.
Rule 42.Consolidation; Separate Trials
Last amended April 1, 2015 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets a court combine cases that share common questions for a joint hearing or trial, or split claims and issues into separate trials, and requires a bifurcated jury trial on request whenever punitive damages are at stake.
Full Text of Rule 42
(b) Separate Trials. (1) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), all actions tried before a jury in which punitive damages are sought shall, on the motion of any party and if warranted by the evidence, be conducted in a bifurcated trial before the same jury. The jury shall first determine the liability of the defendant or defendants for compensatory damages, the amount of compensatory damages to be awarded, and, at the discretion of the circuit court, the liability of the defendant or defendants for punitive damages. Should it be necessary, the jury will then determine in a separate proceeding, the liability of the defendant or defendants for punitive damages, if that issue was not decided previously, and the amount of punitive damages to be awarded. Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition shall not be admitted in the first proceeding unless relevant to an issue other than the amount of punitive damages.
Amendment History
Amended February 26, 2015, effective April 1, 2015.
Reporter's Notes
Reporter’s Notes to Rule 42: 1. Rule 42 is substantially the same as FRCP 42. Prior Arkansas law concerning consolidation of cases for trial was found in superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 27- 1304 and 27-1305 (Repl. 1962) and little change is effected by this rule. Generally speaking, consolidation of cases is normally permitted for convenience and economy in judicial administration and not to merge claims into a single cause or change parties’ rights. Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 53 S. Ct. 721 (1933). The question of whether to order consolidation rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Knauer, 149 F. 2d 519 (C.C.A. 7th, 1945), aff’d, 328 U.S. 654, 66 S. Ct. 1304.
Addition to Reporter’s Notes (2015 amendment): New paragraph (2) has been added to subdivision (b), with its original text designated as paragraph (1). In jury trials, paragraph (2) requires a separate trial, on motion of any party, to determine the amount of punitive damages. The circuit court, in the exercise of its discretion, determines whether liability for punitive damages is to be decided in the first or second phase of the bifurcated proceeding. With the adoption of this amendment, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-211 is superseded pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-11-301. Section 16-55-211 required bifurcation of the entire punitive-damages claim on motion of a party, as do statutes elsewhere. E.g., Minn. Stat. Ann. § 549.20(4); S.C Code § 15-32-520. By contrast, other states require a separate trial only as to the amount of punitive damages. E.g., Mo. Stat. Ann. § 510.263(1)–(3); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104(a). The amendment stakes out a middle ground between these approaches; codifies the pre-2003 practice in Arkansas; and, except as to the amount of punitive damages, leaves the extent of bifurcation to the discretion of the circuit court.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 42 gives a trial court two related tools for managing cases that overlap or diverge. Subsection (a) lets the court combine cases that share a common question of law or fact — ordering a joint hearing, a joint trial, or full consolidation — whenever doing so avoids duplicated cost or delay. Nothing about consolidation is mandatory; it rests in the court's discretion and is a case-management tool, not a way to merge separate parties' rights into one claim.
Subsection (b) runs the opposite direction. Even within a single case, the court may sever out a claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or discrete issue for its own trial when doing so serves convenience, avoids prejudice to a party, or promotes speed and economy.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) carves out a mandatory rule for one specific situation: a jury trial where punitive damages are sought. On a party's motion, and if the evidence warrants it, the trial must be bifurcated. The jury first decides liability and the amount of compensatory damages, and, if the court chooses to submit it at that stage, whether the defendant is liable for punitive damages at all. Only if punitive liability remains open, or once it is established, does the jury move to a second phase to set the punitive-damages amount. Evidence of the defendant's financial condition — often the most prejudicial evidence in a punitive-damages case — stays out of the first phase unless it bears on some other issue besides the punitive-damages figure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does consolidating two cases turn them into one lawsuit?
Not necessarily. Consolidation under subsection (a) is a case-management device for holding a joint hearing or trial and coordinating related proceedings to save time and expense. It doesn't merge the parties' separate claims or rights into a single cause of action unless the court says otherwise.
When would a court order separate trials within one case?
When doing so serves convenience, avoids prejudice to a party, or promotes speed and economy. The court can sever any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or even a single issue for its own trial.
Is bifurcation required whenever punitive damages are claimed?
Only in a jury trial, and only if a party asks for it and the evidence supports bifurcation. When that happens, paragraph (2) makes a two-phase trial mandatory: the jury sets compensatory damages, and, if the court elects, punitive liability, first, then addresses any remaining punitive-damages issue and the amount in a second phase.
Can the jury hear about the defendant's finances before deciding punitive liability and compensatory damages?
Generally no. Rule 42(b)(2) keeps evidence of the defendant's financial condition out of the first phase of a bifurcated trial unless it is relevant to something other than the size of a punitive award.
Who decides whether liability for punitive damages is determined in the first or second phase of a bifurcated trial?
The circuit court. The rule gives the judge discretion to submit the punitive-liability question to the jury in the first phase, alongside compensatory damages, or to reserve it for the second phase along with the punitive-damages amount.
Source & verification. Rule text, Reporter's Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, prescribed by
the Arkansas Supreme Court. The plain-English summary is original and written by us.
Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: consolidation of cases Arkansasseparate trials rulebifurcated trial punitive damagesjoint hearing ruleArk R Civ P 42