In trial, David Ball’s rule is to spend less time on showing fault than proving loss.  His point - we are not going to trial to simply get a verdict of responsibility.    It isn't enough for a jury to tell the defendant "you did it."   The jury needs to make things right.  Our country has decided that isn't done with "an eye for an eye."  Instead, the jury sets a money value that is needed for the plaintiff to get back to even.

The defense wants to turn the jury's attention away from making things right.  It does this by making the jury's job complex.   The defense will fight even those cases where fault should be crystal clear.

In my last trial, an SUV driven by a 16 year old, unlawfully changed lanes and ran into a moped driver.  There were two independent eye witnesses.  They both testified the SUV driver made an unsafe lane change.  Still the defense lawyer blamed the plaintiff through the whole trial.   Why you ask.

Complexity is a friend of the defense.  The more complex, the more confusion.  The more confusion the more hesitancy.  The more hesitancy the more likely a defense verdict.

In our case the jury didn't buy that.  They ruled in favor of the plaintiff.