In my first Moot Court Case at Law School, the Professor made us Switch Sides the day before the trial to make us focus on the other side's arguments. Looking at my case from the Defendant's point of view, I realize that my case was Very Difficult to Win for the following reasons:
1) I crashed my bike all by myself through improper braking technique, probably by locking the front wheel and not releasing it soon enough.
2) My Age is a factor here. I might have had a Lot of Good Training, but apparently I was not able to apply that training in an Emergency.
3) I fell down quickly and didn't see anything the Defendant did beyond his initial entry into the intersection. Things would have been different had I stayed upright longer, had seen where D ended up, noted color and make of his car, etc. Also Different if I had crashed swerving to avoid D. As Mike said in his Closing Statement, at the point I lost contact with D, for all I know, he could have been turning right into the #2 or #3 lane -- I didn't know, before I fell down, that he was trying to cross all the lanes to make a left turn.
4) Non-impact cases are Hard to Prove, as the jury sees that I crashed my bike, D didn't hit me or my bike, and, in this case, by All the evidence, didn't enter my lane. The Jury thinks if I had just braked properly, no harm, no foul. Which is True! Why should D pay for My crashing My bike when D clearly stopped in time?!
5) Therefore, we should Not have been so Optimistic and I should have taken the $30K offered by D to settle. I think we both got a little greedy... (Of course, this is Easy to Conclude, given the result. The Jury clearly Didn't Get It. We won two votes. The case would have Probably been won with a better jury, and I realize that. This case was probably Lost at Voir Dire, through no fault of our own in the selection process. I Never felt Connected to the Jury, and I don't think you did, either!)
At the trial, in retrospect, you might have done things a bit differently (but I'm not a trial lawyer: What do I Know?!):
1) Deal More Directly with the Problem of My Crashing My Bike, which seemed to me to be an Elephant in the Room, with us consistently saying that I did Nothing Wrong. Admit I lost control by braking improperly, but stress that it was an Emergency and Perfection is Not Required. I did the Best I Could in a Life-Threatening Situation. D's actions Caused me to apply my brakes in the first place. He clearly Didn't See Me as he entered the intersection.
2) Prove Emergency. D thought we would collide when he first saw me (perhaps this point was not stressed Enough at the trial). Distances, Speeds, where D ended up, No Crystal Ball, Reasonable (though Not Perfect) actions in Dire, Life-Threatening Emergency, etc.
3) In light of one of the juror's comments after trial, it might have been a Good Idea to make sure the Jury knew what the Burden of Proof in a Civil Case is!
I don't know if any of the above will help you in your next case or not, and I truly wonder whether tackling My Crashing My Bike head on is the best tactic. Clearly you didn't think so or you would have done it. But it always did Bother Me that we weren't addressing this issue, and I take the Blame for not bringing this issue up.
I was very impressed by your Passionate Commitment to my cause and your Excellent Preparation. You did Everything you could to win. With a Different Jury, we well might have won. We always Roll the Dice at a jury trial. But I Do think you might have been More Optimistic than the Facts of My Particular Case merited. On the other hand, it's your Job to be Optimistic, isn't it?
All I can Really Say, at the end of it, is THANK YOU for Representing Me So Spectacularly!