Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
As a general rule, questions of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately ( see 22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]; Barrera v. Skaggs-Walsh, Inc., 279 AD2d 442; Rothbard v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 233 AD2d 434; Martinez v. Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484). It is only where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability that a joint trial of both issues is permitted ( see Dulin v. Maher, 200 AD2d 707; Amato v. Hudson Country Montessori School, 185 AD2d 803, 804; cf. DeGregorio v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 142 AD2d 543, 544). The Supreme Court providently denied the defendants' motion for a unified trial, as the defendants failed to show a need to introduce evidence of the alleged injuries in order to establish that they were nonnegligent in the happening of this rear-end collision ( see Barrera v. Skaggs-Walsh, Inc., supra; Felice v. Southside Hosp., 249 AD2d 359, 360; Rothbard v. F.W. Woolworth Co., supra).