A picture that’s been making its way around the internet:

Smashed Ferrari

Can you imagine how fast they were going?

From the Daily Mail, here’s why this picture is evidence of triumph, not failure:

The un-named driver and his passenger were taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital for treatment, but their injuries were said to be not serious.

"Not serious?" They destroy a race car driving it into an immobile object at a speed most people never reach and their injuries are "not serious?"

Ignore the idiot driver. Three cheers for Ferrari, for designing a car that collapsed in such a manner to slow the impact sufficiently to prevent decelleration injury, yet not permit intrusion into the driver and passenger spaces.

That is to say, the Ferrari "failed well." When things went wrong, it did its job and accomplished its primary goal of protecting the occupants.

Compare to all the things you have seen "fail badly," like the trial case that collapsed when a third party witness mixed up seemingly (to them) minor details, or the litigation that changed course entirely when you trapped a defendant with inconsistent discovery answers, or the complete waste of a day when you botched a filing procedure in the most trivial of ways and then spent hours rectifying the situation.

Before your next trial, think for a moment: what happens if I lose most of the court rulings, get beat up by my opponent’s witnesses, and can’t keep my witnesses from fumbling most of their testimony? 

If the answer is, "I definitely lose," then you need to rethink your strategy. You need to find a more robust theory of the case that can deliver your passengers safety to their destination.