CJ-2026-00022 - CHANDLER HANEY v. JOHN SELBY

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this is not a lawsuit about a car crash into another car. No, no—this is a lawsuit about a man suing another man for $75,000… because he crashed into a stop sign. Not a person. Not a house. Not even a mailbox. A stop sign. The very symbol of “hey, maybe slow down a sec” has become the centerpiece of a legal battle that sounds like it was written by someone who lost a bet and now has to file something, anything, in court.

But here we are. In the sleepy town of Tushka, Oklahoma—a place so small Google Maps might whisper “are you sure?” when you type it in—Chandler Haney is suing John Selby for damages stemming from a motor vehicle collision that, according to the petition, happened because Selby allegedly failed to yield at an intersection. The intersection in question? SW First Street and Highway 69-75. If that sounds like the kind of crossroads where time goes to die and cell service goes to disappear, you’re not wrong. It’s the kind of place where the most exciting thing to happen all week is when the Dollar General runs out of beef jerky. But on March 27, 2024, things got dramatic. Or at least, dramatic enough to justify a demand for over $75,000 and a full-blown negligence claim.

So who are these two gentlemen? Well, Chandler Haney, the plaintiff, is described in the filing as a resident of Atoka County—Oklahoma’s version of “middle of nowhere, but with better deer hunting.” He’s represented by Joe Carson of Warhawk Legal, a firm that, based on their name alone, sounds like it specializes in high-speed chases and personal injury claims involving farm equipment. On the other side, we have John Selby, also of Atoka County, who, as far as we know, was just trying to get from point A to point B without hiring a lawyer yet. There’s no indication the two knew each other before the crash. No history of feud. No prior run-ins. Just two Oklahomans, minding their own business, until one of them allegedly blew through a stop sign and turned a routine drive into a legal drama.

Now, let’s talk about what actually happened—or at least, what Chandler Haney says happened. On that fateful day in March, our cast of two converged at the intersection of SW First Street and Highway 69-75. According to the petition, Selby was coming from a side road and failed to yield at a stop sign. Instead of stopping, yielding, and perhaps taking a moment to appreciate the beauty of rural Oklahoma, he allegedly plowed forward and struck Haney’s vehicle. The impact was, in the court’s words, “significant.” So significant, in fact, that it allegedly caused Haney a whole laundry list of injuries and damages. We don’t know exactly what those injuries are—broken tailbone? Whiplash from jerking the wheel to avoid a squirrel? Emotional trauma from realizing he’d been hit by someone who couldn’t read a stop sign?—but we do know they were serious enough to warrant a claim for past and future physical pain, mental anguish, medical expenses, lost wages, and even disfigurement or permanent impairment. That’s right—this stop sign collision may have left someone permanently scarred. Or at least, that’s what the jury will be asked to consider.

But here’s where it gets juicy. Haney isn’t just asking for compensation. He’s asking for over $75,000. Why that number? Because it’s the magic threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction—meaning if you’re suing someone from the same state, you usually need to be asking for more than $75,000 to get into federal court. So by demanding “greater than $75,000,” Haney’s lawyers are essentially saying, “Hey, we want this case to be taken seriously. This isn’t just a fender bender. This is a life-altering event involving a very sturdy stop sign.”

And just to twist the knife, the petition throws in a request for punitive damages. That’s not just “pay for my medical bills” territory—that’s “you were so reckless, we need to punish you financially to teach a lesson” territory. The filing accuses Selby of “wanton disregard for the safety of others,” which sounds like a line from a courtroom movie, not a traffic accident in Tushka. Wanton disregard? Was he drag racing a combine harvester? Streaming Netflix on his phone while doing burnouts? The petition doesn’t say. But it does imply that Selby wasn’t just careless—he was dangerously careless.

So what does Haney actually want? Money. A lot of it. More than $75,000, plus interest, court costs, and punitive damages. Is $75,000 a lot for a stop-sign collision? Well, that depends. If Haney suffered a serious injury—say, a back injury requiring surgery, or chronic pain that’s kept him out of work for months—then sure, that number might be reasonable. But if this was a minor fender bender with a few dents, a trip to urgent care, and some soreness that cleared up in a week? Then $75,000 starts to sound like someone trying to turn a $1,200 repair bill into a down payment on a pickup truck. And let’s not forget: the petition mentions “loss of [earnings/time]”—with the brackets still in there, like the lawyer typed it and forgot to fill in the blank. Was that a typo? A placeholder never updated? Or a subtle cry for help from a paralegal who’s seen too many of these cases?

Here’s our take: the most absurd part of this lawsuit isn’t that someone crashed into a stop sign. That happens. The absurdity lies in the sheer scale of the claim. We’re being asked to believe that a failure to yield at a rural intersection—resulting in a collision with another vehicle, not a pedestrian or a school bus—caused injuries so severe they justify a demand exceeding $75,000 and a full-throated accusation of “wanton disregard.” It’s the legal equivalent of bringing a flamethrower to a campfire. And while we’re not saying Chandler Haney isn’t hurt—we’re not doctors, and we weren’t there—we are saying that lawsuits like this make it harder for people with truly catastrophic injuries to be taken seriously.

That said… we’re low-key rooting for the stop sign. It was just doing its job. Standing there. Silent. Authoritative. And now it’s collateral damage in a legal battle that may never even go to trial. If this case settles out of court—and let’s be real, most of them do—that stop sign will have taken a hit for the team, and no one will even put up a memorial. Shame. It deserved better.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

JOE CARSON

WARHAWK LEGAL

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

CHANDLER HANEY individual
Rep: WARHAWK LEGAL

Defendants

JOHN SELBY individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	negligence	motor vehicle collision

Petition Text

1,056 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ATOKA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CHANDLER HANEY Plaintiff, vs. JOHN SELBY, Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, Chandler Haney (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for his cause of action against Defendant John Selby, (hereinafter “Defendant”) and states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff was a citizen and resident of Atoka County, State of Oklahoma at the time of the incident hereinafter described. 2. Defendant was a citizen and resident of Atoka County, State of Oklahoma at the time of the incident hereinafter described. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred in Atoka County, Oklahoma when Defendant was negligent in causing the collision that is the subject of this action. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto, jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, and venue is proper. THE CAUSE OF ACTION 5. On or about March 27, 20024, a motor vehicle collision occurred when Defendant negligently drove a vehicle and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. 6. The collision occurred at SW First Street and 69-75 Highway in Tushka, Atoka County, Oklahoma. 7. Defendant failed to yield from a stop sign resulting in a collision. 8. The significant impact from the collision caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff that are described below. 9. At all times Plaintiff was acting in a safe and prudent manner. DUTIES OWED BY DEFENDANT 10. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of keeping a proper lookout for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 11. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of keeping his vehicle under proper control for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 12. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of not driving his vehicle in such a manner as to indicate wanton disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 13. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of using ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 14. Defendant was not allowed to endanger Plaintiff or anyone else by violating one or more of the traffic safety rules listed above. DUTIES VIOLATED BY DEFENDANT 15. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of keeping a proper lookout, which needlessly endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 16. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of keeping his vehicle under proper control, which endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 17. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of not driving his vehicle in such a manner as to indicate wanton disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and others. 18. At the time of the collision, Defendant violated the duty to follow the safety rule of using ordinary care, which needlessly endangered the safety of Plaintiff and others. 19. At the time of the collision, Defendant needlessly endangered Plaintiff and others by failing to follow one or more of the traffic safety rules listed above. CAUSATION OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES AND DAMAGES 20. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, more particularly described below, were produced in a natural and continuous sequence from Defendant’s violation of the above-described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff. 21. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff were a probable consequence from Defendant’s violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff. 22. Defendant should have foreseen and anticipated that a violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties to use ordinary care would constitute an appreciable risk of harm to others, including Plaintiff. 23. If Defendant had not violated one or more of the above-described independent duties to use ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff, then the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages would not have occurred. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF 24. The injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s violations of one or more of the above-described safety rules, include but are not limited to the following: Pursuant to the provisions of 12 O.S. §3226(A)(2)(a), Plaintiff submits this preliminary computation of damages sought in this lawsuit. As this is an action for injuries suffered by an adult, Plaintiff advises that all the damages recoverable by law are sought, including those listed in OUJI3d 4.1. These items are among the elements for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of damages to ward to Plaintiff. Other than the amounts which Plaintiff has specifically identified, and which are capable of being ascertained to some degree of certainty, Plaintiff is unable to guess or speculate as to what of damages a jury might award. The elements for the jury to consider including the following: A. Plaintiff’s physical pain and suffering, past and future; B. Plaintiff’s mental pain and suffering, past and future; C. Plaintiff’s age; D. Plaintiff’s physical condition immediately before and after the accident; E. The nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries; F. Whether the injuries are permanent; G. The physical impairment; H. The disfigurement; I. Loss of [earnings/time]; K. The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment, and services, past and future. AMOUNT OF DAMAGES 25. Plaintiff's injuries and damages are greater than the amount required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (currently $75,000.00). Plaintiff prays for judgment in an amount greater than $75,000.00, plus interest, costs and all such other and further relief for which should be awarded as judgment against the Defendant in an amount to fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for each and every element of damages that has been suffered. RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS 26. Plaintiff reserves the right to plead further upon completion of discovery to state additional claims and to name additional parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Chandler Haney, prays for judgment against John Selby, in a sum in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (currently $75,000.00) plus interest, costs, punitive damages, and all such other and further relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, WARHAWK LEGAL ____________________________________ Joe Carson, OBA #19429 3721 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff