CJ-2026-1223 - Thomas Rawlings v. Paul Little

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: Thomas Rawlings is suing Paul Little for at least $75,000 — not because Little keyed his car, not because he stole his Wi-Fi, but because Little allegedly blew through a stoplight, slammed into the back of Rawlings’ truck like he was auditioning for Fast & Furious: Oklahoma Drift, and then got slapped with a citation for failing to “devote full time and attention” to the road. In other words, he was probably texting, snacking, or mid-sip on a gas station iced coffee when he turned Rawlings’ 2013 GMC Sierra into a crumpled metal piñata. And now? Now Rawlings wants him to pay. Not just for the tow hitch damage — though we’re told that area took a direct hit — but for pain, suffering, medical bills, and possibly even lost wages. All because Paul Little apparently forgot how driving works.

So who are these two? Well, Thomas Rawlings is just your average Oklahoma City resident, minding his business, driving his 11-year-old pickup like a responsible adult who probably checks his oil and rotates his tires religiously. He was at the intersection of SW 79th Street and South May — not exactly Mulholland Drive, not exactly a racetrack — just a regular four-way stop where people are expected to, you know, stop. He was stopped. He was waiting. He was doing the legal and moral thing by preparing to make a left turn. Meanwhile, Paul Little — also an Oklahoma County local — was barreling southbound on South May in his 2000 Honda Accord, which, let’s be honest, looks like it survived the Y2K scare only to face its final boss: basic traffic laws. Little saw Rawlings. At least, that’s what the petition claims — he saw him, hit the brakes, but couldn’t stop in time. Which means either his brakes were faulty (unlikely, given no mention of mechanical failure), or he was going way too fast, too distracted, or both. Either way, he rear-ended Rawlings hard enough to damage the rear bumper and the tow hitch — a detail the lawyers dropped like it’s evidence in a CSI: Midwest episode. This wasn’t a fender-bender. This was a thud-ender.

Now, let’s talk about the aftermath. Rawlings says he was hurt. Not just “I felt a little stiff the next day” hurt, but “I have ongoing pain, possible permanent injuries, and future medical needs” hurt. His legal team is laying it all out: physical pain, mental anguish, potential loss of income, impaired earning capacity, medical expenses — past and future. They’re not just suing for the dent. They’re suing for the domino effect. Did he miss work? Did he need physical therapy? Did he develop a fear of left turns? We don’t know yet — discovery hasn’t happened — but the implication is clear: this wasn’t just a ding on the bumper. It was a life disruption. And Paul Little? He got a citation for failing to “devote full time and attention” — which, in cop-speak, means he was distracted. Maybe scrolling through TikTok, maybe arguing with his GPS, maybe trying to grab a french fry from the passenger seat. Whatever it was, it was enough for an officer to say, “Sir, you weren’t paying attention,” and write him up. That citation? It’s not proof of guilt in civil court, but it’s a juicy little arrow in Rawlings’ quiver.

So why are they in court? Because Rawlings’ lawyers are claiming negligence — plain and simple. They’re saying Little had a duty to drive safely, to keep a proper lookout, to control his vehicle, and to use ordinary care. And he failed on all counts. He didn’t look. He didn’t slow down. He didn’t stop. He didn’t care. And because of that, Rawlings got hurt. That’s the core of the lawsuit: you had a responsibility to not smash into me, and you blew it. Now you pay. The legal jargon is thick in the petition — “re-alleges,” “duties violated,” “causation in a natural and continuous sequence” — but boil it down, and it’s this: you hit me, you hurt me, you’re responsible. And no, your ancient Honda doesn’t get a sympathy pass.

Now, about that $75,000. Is that a lot? For rear-ending someone? Well, it depends. If Rawlings walked away with a bruised tailbone and a $1,200 repair bill, then yes — $75k is highway robbery. But if he’s dealing with chronic back pain, ongoing treatment, missed work, and long-term limitations? Then suddenly, that number doesn’t seem so crazy. Medical bills alone can spiral fast. One MRI, one round of physical therapy, one specialist consult — boom, you’re halfway there. And if there’s even a hint of permanency — say, a herniated disc or nerve damage — insurance companies start sweating. Rawlings isn’t asking for $75,000 outright; he’s saying his damages exceed $75,000, which is the threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction. Why mention that? Because his lawyers want to keep the door open — if this case escalates, they might try to move it to federal court. But for now, it’s sitting right where it belongs: Oklahoma County District Court, where fender-benders with big price tags go to get settled.

And here’s the kicker — Rawlings’ lawyers are also floating the idea of punitive damages. Not just compensation. Punishment. They want to slap Little with extra cash not because Rawlings needs it, but because Little deserves it. Why? Because his actions were “gross and reckless.” That’s a high bar. You don’t get punitive damages for a momentary lapse. You get them for behavior so dumb, so dangerous, it’s practically begging for a public shaming. Was Little street racing? Was he on his phone video-calling his ex? We don’t know. But the petition sure wants us to think he was driving like a cartoon villain. And while punitive damages are rare in standard car crash cases, just asking for them ups the pressure. It’s a message: “We’re not just suing you. We’re judging you.”

Our take? Look, car accidents happen. We’ve all flinched at a rearview mirror when someone’s riding our bumper a little too close. But the real absurdity here isn’t the lawsuit — it’s how common this is. People drive like they’re immortal. They scroll, they snack, they zone out, and then — crunch — someone else pays the price. Rawlings could’ve been anyone. Could’ve been you. Could’ve been me. And while $75,000 sounds like a lot for a 2000 Accord vs. a 2013 Sierra, the truth is, pain doesn’t come with a price tag. Neither does being treated like a speed bump. We’re not rooting for blood. We’re rooting for accountability. For the guy who got hit while doing everything right to not get stuck with the bill. And for Paul Little? We’re rooting — just a little — that he finally learns what “full time and attention” actually means. Preferably before he hits someone going faster than his Honda’s top speed.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Joseph ‘Joe’ Carson, OBA # 19429, Harry ‘Jake’ Kouri, OBA # 34701'

Warhawk Legal

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Thomas Rawlings individual
Rep: Joseph ‘Joe’ Carson, OBA # 19429, Harry ‘Jake’ Kouri, OBA # 34701'

Defendants

Paul Little individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence	Motor vehicle collision on April 24, 2024, resulting in injuries and damages to plaintiff's rear bumper and tow hitch area.

Petition Text

1,232 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA THOMAS RAWLINGS, Plaintiff, vs. PAUL LITTLE, Defendant. FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA February 16, 2026 3:52 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1223 Case No. Judge PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Thomas Rawlings (the “Plaintiff”), and for his cause of action against the Defendant, Paul Little (the “Defendant”) and states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Oklahoma and resident of Oklahoma County and State of Oklahoma, at the time of the incident. 2. Defendant was a citizen of the State of Oklahoma and resident of Oklahoma County and State of Oklahoma, at the time of the incident. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on April 24, 2024. 4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION-NEGLIGENCE 5. On April 24, 2024, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Plaintiff was driving a 2013 GMC Sierra and was stopped at the intersection of SW 79th Street and South May to turn left onto SW 79th Street. Defendant was driving a 2000 Honda Accord and was traveling southbound on South May in the inside lane and saw the Plaintiff. Defendant hit his brakes but did not stop in time, causing Defendant to strike Plaintiff’s vehicle and causing damages to the Plaintiff’s rear bumper and tow hitch area. Defendant was issued a citation for failure to devote full time and attention. 6. The significant impact from the collision hurt Plaintiff and caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff that are described below. Defendant was negligent in operating the vehicle which caused the above-mentioned motor vehicle collision. 7. At all times Plaintiff was acting in a safe and prudent manner. DUTIES OWED BY DEFENDANT 8. That Plaintiff restates, adopts, and re-alleges all of the allegations of the First Cause of Action-Negligence as if fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: 9. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of keeping proper lookout for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 10. 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. 11. Defendant was required to follow the traffic safety rule of not driving his vehicle in such a manner as to indicate disregard 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 using ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff and others, both before and at the time of the collision. 13. 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 14. That Plaintiff restates, adopts, and re-alleges all of the allegations of the Duties Owed by Defendant as if fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: 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 any disregard for the safety of the 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 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. That Plaintiff restates, adopts, and re-alleges all of the allegations of the Duties Violated by Defendant as if fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: 21. The injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff, more particularly described below, were produced in a natural and continuous sequence from Defendant’s violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff. 22. 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. 23. 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. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF 24. That Plaintiff restates, adopts, and re-alleges all of the allegations of the Causation of Plaintiff’s Injuries and Damages as if fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: 25. The injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s negligence, include but are not limited to 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, J. Impairment of earning capacity, and K. The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment, and services, past and future. AMOUNT OF DAMAGES 25. That Plaintiff restates, adopts, and re-alleges all of the allegations of the Compensatory Damages Sustained by Plaintiff as if fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: 26. The Plaintiff’s injuries and damages are in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (currently $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. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 27. That Plaintiff restates, adopts, and re-alleges all of the allegations of the Amount of Damages as if fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: 28. Defendant’s actions were gross and reckless that he should be punished to protect the public. 29. Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages from Defendant as a result of his grossly negligent and reckless conduct in this action. RESERVATION OF CLAIMS 30. That Plaintiff restates, adopts, and re-alleges all of the allegations of the Punitive Damages as if fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: 31. The Plaintiff reserves the right to plead further upon completion of discovery to state additional claims and to name additional parties to this action. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff, Thomas Rawlings requests this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Paul Little, in an amount that could potentially be in excess of $75,000.00 for compensatory damages, punitive damages, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, WARHAWK LEGAL JOSEPH “JOE” CARSON, OBA # 19429 HARRY “JAKE” KOURI, OBA # 34701 3721 N Classen Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 397-1717 Facsimile: (405) 241-5222 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED