The biggest problem is the plaintiff has to convince 6 or 12 folks (depends on the size of the jury) that they deserve to win instead of one person (the judge). If there are any questions that may help the outcome, the judge will ask for a clarification to help him make a decision, the jury cannot do this. Also, jury trials cost a lot more, the plaintiff has to pay the additional cost of empaneling a jury. Taxpayers do not have to pay the cost of supporting civil trials. There are also cases of juries returning verdicts in favor of the plaintiff only to have the judge dismiss the verdict and rule for the other party.
The only benefit to a jury trial would be if the case was for a large amount of money, it was against a large company and the plaintiff had suffered permanent damages. In cases like this a jury would be more likely to be on the side of the little person versus the big company. The hot coffee from McDonalds old lady case would be a good example. Even in that case, the original 2.9 million judgment was reduced to a bit over $200,000 on appeal. I personally would not see any benefit to a jury trial in a small claims case.
