Richard L. Havenar v. Charles R. Hobbs
What's This Case About?
Let’s be real: how many times have you pulled out of a driveway, glanced both ways, and thought, “Nah, I’m good,” only to nearly cause a five-car pileup? Most of us live to tell the tale. But in Sapulpa, Oklahoma, on a perfectly ordinary morning in May 2024, one man’s “I’m good” moment turned into someone else’s lifelong medical nightmare — and now, it’s a courtroom drama with spinal injuries, life expectancy tables, and enough legal jargon to make your head spin faster than a 2011 Dodge 1500 flipping across Highway 117.
Meet Richard L. Havenar. Forty-six years old, lives in Sapulpa, drives a silver 2005 Dodge Dakota that’s seen better days — but still better days than May 25, 2024. That morning, Richard was cruising east on Highway 117, minding his own business, probably listening to classic rock or the local news, when out of nowhere, a gold truck shot out from a private drive connected to Walmart. That truck? Driven by Charles R. Hobbs — not a stunt driver, not a fugitive on the run, just a guy with a license plate, an address on Elizabeth Street, and apparently, zero regard for stop signs.
Now, here’s where things get juicy. There was a stop sign. A real, red, octagonal, “you-must-stop-here” kind of sign. And it wasn’t hidden behind a bush, a rogue tumbleweed, or a suspiciously tall mailbox. According to the official Oklahoma Traffic Collision Report — Exhibit “6,” as the lawyers lovingly call it — the road was dry, it was daylight, the weather was clear, and the intersection was level. In other words: nothing obscured Charles Hobbs’ view. Not weather, not terrain, not even a rogue armadillo. Just a stop sign he chose to treat like a suggestion.
Charles, driving north on that private drive, didn’t stop. Didn’t yield. Didn’t even pretend to slow down. He just… pulled out. Right in front of Richard Havenar. The impact? The front of Richard’s 2005 Dakota slammed into the driver’s side of Charles’ 2011 Dodge. Not a fender bender. Not a “let’s-exchange-insurance-and-move-on” moment. This was a full-on, airbags-deploying, ambulance-called, “To Medical Facility: Creek County AMB” kind of collision.
And here’s the kicker: Charles Hobbs’ insurance company — Casualty Underwriters Insurance — didn’t even try to fight it. Within a day, they sent an email (Exhibit “7,” because of course it’s marked) accepting responsibility. No “he said, she said.” No “well, the sun was in his eyes.” Just a corporate shrug and a checkbook ready to open. So legally speaking, this case is less “whodunit” and more “well, duh, he did it.”
But what exactly did he do? Legally, the plaintiff’s petition throws the entire Oklahoma driver’s manual at Charles. He’s accused of negligence, which in normal-people terms means “you didn’t pay attention and someone got hurt.” But they didn’t stop there. Oh no. They went full thesaurus mode: he failed to keep a proper lookout, he drove carelessly, he was inattentive, he failed to yield, he failed to obey a traffic-control device — that’s legalese for “you ignored the stop sign, buddy” — and, in a move that sounds like it came from a 1950s courtroom drama, he was negligent per se, meaning he broke a law so clearly that it automatically counts as negligence. They even throw in reckless driving and gross negligence, which is like negligence’s evil twin — the kind where you’re not just careless, you’re basically daring the universe to punish you.
The statutes cited? A whole parade of them. 47 O.S. § 11-201: obey traffic signs. Check. 47 O.S. § 401: yield when entering a highway from a private drive. Double check. 47 O.S. § 504: exercise due care. Triple check. It’s like the plaintiff’s lawyer copied and pasted the entire Oklahoma Vehicle Code into the petition and highlighted the parts Charles violated in red Sharpie.
So what does Richard want? Well, the petition doesn’t give us a dollar figure — just says “a sum in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction,” which, for non-lawyers, means “more than $75,000, but we’re not telling you exactly how much… yet.” But we do know he’s suffered “acute spinal injuries,” ongoing physical pain, mental anguish, and has already dropped over $7,400 on medical bills. And get this — he’s only 46. According to IRS life expectancy tables (yes, that’s a thing), he’s expected to live another 40 years. That’s four decades of potential pain, therapy, and “what if I’d just stayed home that day?” That’s not chump change. That’s future medical care, lost wages if he can’t work, and the emotional toll of living with chronic pain. In that context, $75,000 starts to look… reasonable. Maybe even low.
Now, let’s talk about what’s not in dispute. Richard wasn’t texting. Wasn’t speeding. Wasn’t drunk. Wasn’t even slightly tired. He was just… driving. Legally. On a highway. The way you’re supposed to. Meanwhile, Charles? We don’t know if he was on the phone, eating a burrito, or just daydreaming about retirement in Branson — the report doesn’t say. But we do know he didn’t stop. He didn’t yield. He didn’t do the one thing the stop sign was literally there to make him do.
And yet — and this is the most absurd part — Charles might walk away from this with nothing more than a repaired fender and a slightly bruised ego, while Richard deals with spinal injuries for the rest of his life. That’s the brutal math of civil court: money can’t fix a spine, but it’s the only tool the system has. And while Casualty Underwriters Insurance will likely pay up (because they already admitted fault), the real story here isn’t about dollars. It’s about how one split-second decision — one ignored stop sign — can derail a life.
Are we rooting for Richard? Absolutely. Not because he’s perfect — he’s just a guy in a pickup truck — but because he was doing everything right. And Charles? Well, let’s just say if this case teaches us anything, it’s that stop signs aren’t decorative. They’re there for a reason. And if you don’t believe us, just ask Richard Havenar — he’ll tell you between therapy sessions.
Case Overview
-
Richard L. Havenar
individual
Rep: Robert L. Rode, Nathan W. Solomon
- Charles R. Hobbs individual
| # | Cause of Action | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Negligence | Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision caused by Defendant's failure to yield |