Last amended July 1, 2015 · Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42 lets a court join or consolidate actions that share a common question of law or fact to save time and expense, and separately lets the court order separate trials of particular claims or issues for convenience or to avoid prejudice, while always preserving the right to a jury trial.
If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:
aJoin for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
bConsolidate the actions; or
cIssue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
2Asbestos, silicosis, or mixed dust disease actions
In tort actions involving an asbestos claim, a silicosis claim, or a mixed dust disease claim, the court may consolidate pending actions for case management purposes. For purposes of trial, the court may consolidate pending actions only with the consent of all parties. Absent the consent of all parties, the court may consolidate, for purposes of trial, only those pending actions relating to the same exposed person and members of the exposed person’s household.
3As used in division (A)(2) of this rule:
a“Asbestos claim” has the same meaning as in R.C. 2307.91;
b“Silicosis claim” and “mixed dust disease claim” have the same meaning as in R.C. 2307.84;
cIn reference to an asbestos claim, “tort action” has the same meaning as in R.C. 2307.91;
dIn reference to a silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim, “tort action” has the same meaning as in R.C. 2307.84.
For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite or economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third- party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court shall preserve any right to a jury trial.
Amendment History
Effective Date: July 1, 1970
Amended: July 1, 2005; July 1, 2015
Staff Note (July 1, 2005 Amendment)
Civ.R. 42 is amended in response to requests from the General Assembly contained in Section 3 of Am. Sub. H.B. 342 of the 125th General Assembly, effective September 1, 2004, and Section 4 of Am. Sub. H.B. 292 of the 125th General Assembly, effective September 2, 2004. These acts contain provisions governing tort claims that allege exposure and injury by persons exposed to asbestos, silica, or mixed dust. Each act includes a request that the Supreme Court amend the Rules of Civil Procedure “to specify procedures for venue and consolidation” of asbestosis, silicosis, and mixed dust disease claims.
Rule 42(A) Consolidation
Civ.R. 42(A)(2) provides that a trial court must have the consent of the parties before consolidating actions for trial that involve an asbestos claim, a silicosis claim, or a mixed dust disease claim. Absent the consent of the parties, the court may consolidate for trial only those claims that involve the same exposed person and members of the exposed person’s household. The rule expressly permits the consolidation of pending actions for case management purposes. Division (A)(3) incorporates the statutory definitions of “asbestos claim,” “silicosis claim,” “mixed dust disease claim,” and “tort action” for purposes of Civ.R. 42(A)(2).
Staff Note (July 1, 2015 Amendment)
Stylistic Changes
The rule is amended to conform the provisions of Civ.R. 42(A)(1) and Civ.R. 42(B) to the 2007 stylistic changes to Federal Rule 42. The amendments are nonsubstantive. Rule 42(A)(2), not found in the federal rule, remains unchanged.
Rule 42(B) R.C. 2315.21(B)(1) Bifurcation
R.C. 2315.21(B)(1) requires a two-stage bifurcation of the trial upon the motion of any party in a tort action that is tried to a jury and in which a plaintiff makes a claim for compensatory damages and a claim for punitive or exemplary damages. In Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 131 Ohio St.3d 235, 2012-Ohio-552, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the statute creates a substantive right and, therefore, takes precedence over the discretion conferred by Civ.R. 42(B) to grant or deny bifurcation. In cases governed by R.C. 2315.21(B), upon the motion of any party the trial court must grant the two-stage bifurcation required by the statute.
Plain-English Summary
Division (A) lets the court, when actions before it involve a common question of law or fact, join those actions for a joint hearing or trial, consolidate them outright, or issue whatever other orders will avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Consolidated actions keep their separate identities -- a motion aimed at the "consolidated action" doesn't automatically apply to every case within it, and judgment is ordinarily entered separately in each unless the cases are closely dependent on each other. A special provision addresses asbestos, silicosis, and mixed dust disease tort claims: the court may consolidate pending actions for case management purposes freely, but may consolidate them for trial only with the consent of all parties, or, absent consent, only among actions involving the same exposed person and that person's household members.
Division (B) authorizes a separate trial of one or more issues, claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims whenever separation serves convenience, avoids prejudice, or promotes expedition and economy -- a common example being trying liability separately from damages. Whatever the court orders, it must preserve each party's right to a jury trial on every issue tried.
Frequently Asked Questions
What lets a court combine two separate lawsuits into one proceeding?
Rule 42(A) allows consolidation, or a joint hearing or trial, whenever the actions pending before the court share a common question of law or fact.
Do consolidated cases become a single lawsuit?
No. Each action keeps its own identity even after consolidation, and judgment is ordinarily entered separately in each case unless the cases are truly dependent on one another.
Can a court split a single case into separate trials, such as liability and damages?
Yes. Rule 42(B) lets the court order a separate trial of particular claims or issues for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize the proceedings, so long as the right to a jury trial is preserved.
Source & verification. The rule text, Effective Date, Amended dates, and Staff Notes are reproduced verbatim from the
official Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure (Ohio R. Civ. P. 42). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Ohio (Ohio Constitution, Art. IV, § 5(B)). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:consolidation of actionsbifurcated trialseparate trials