Limited Admissibility, address the situation where evidence may be admissible for some limited purpose in the case and not admissible for other purposes. The Notes specifically mention cases involving both negligent entrustment and negligence of the actual tortfeasor as a situation in which limited admissibility is appropriate and cites Brack as an example of such a situation. Ala. R. Evid. 105. Similarly, a limiting instruction would be available under Fed.R.Civ.P. 105, which would govern in the trial of this case. Additionally, in the present case, the court will consider a motion to bifurcate the trial on the separate issues if the evidence in support of the negligent entrustment claim is prejudicial to the negligence claim. See Wilder v. DiPiazza, 481 So.2d 1091, 1092 (Ala.1985) (<HOLDING>). In light of the Alabama Supreme Court’s
holding that section 4149 did not apply to the plaintiffs state law claims of breach of duty to protect foster care children from harm and of negligent supervision negligent entrustment and negligent failure to warn holding that trial court did not err holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that trial court did not err in striking plaintiffs negligent hiring employment and entrustment claims against employer where employer acknowledged vicarious liability for employees negligence holding that trial court did not err in separating negligent entrustment and negligence claims for trial