Trey Robert Choyce v. Rhonda K. Eberhart

Let’s be honest: we’ve all seen it happen—someone blows through an intersection like they’re auditioning for Fast & Furious: Ada Drift, and someone else pays the price. But in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, one driver’s apparent disregard for basic traffic laws allegedly turned a routine drive into a full-blown legal drama involving bodily injuries, medical bills, and a lawsuit that’s got all the makings of a small-town traffic tragedy turned courtroom spectacle. The kicker? The plaintiff claims the defendant didn’t just make a bad turn—she plowed into his driver’s side after failing to yield, allegedly breaking not one, not two, but four separate traffic laws in the process. And yes, we’re counting.

Meet Trey Robert Choyce, a resident of Garvin County, Oklahoma, who—on March 27, 2024—was just trying to get from point A to point B like the rest of us. He wasn’t chasing adrenaline, wasn’t livestreaming his commute, and, as far as we know, wasn’t even blasting Toby Keith at top volume. He was simply driving down East Arlington Street in Ada when, according to his court filing, Rhonda K. Eberhart—apparently en route from Coal County—decided that the intersection with Tipton Terrace was more suggestion than stop sign. Allegedly. Because, of course, we’re not convicting anyone here—this is just what Choyce’s lawyer says happened. But if the petition is to be believed, Eberhart didn’t just inch forward nervously. She allegedly barreled into Choyce’s vehicle, T-boning him right on the driver’s side—the kind of impact that doesn’t just ding a fender, it rearranges your entire Tuesday.

Now, let’s talk about what actually went down—or at least, what Choyce’s legal team wants the court to believe. According to the petition filed on February 16, 2026, Eberhart failed to yield the right of way, failed to pay attention, made an improper left turn, and drove in a reckless manner. That’s not just a momentary lapse in judgment—that’s a four-course meal of traffic violations. Oklahoma law, as cited in the filing, is pretty clear: you don’t just cruise into oncoming traffic like it’s a drive-thru lane. Section 11-402 of the Oklahoma Rules of the Road literally says you gotta yield. Section 11-901b? That’s the “pay attention while driving” rule. And Section 11-901? That’s the “don’t drive like a maniac” statute. So if Choyce’s claims hold water, Eberhart didn’t just mess up—she allegedly violated the driver’s ed equivalent of the Ten Commandments.

And let’s be real: getting T-boned is no joke. It’s one of the most dangerous types of collisions because, well, you’re sitting right there in the line of fire. No crumple zone, no buffer—just you, your seatbelt, and however much faith you have in modern airbag technology. According to the petition, Choyce didn’t walk away unscathed. He claims he suffered “bodily injuries and pain of body and mind,” “mental anguish and anxiety,” had to seek medical attention, lost income, lost enjoyment of life, and—perhaps most damning—will likely need more medical care in the future due to “permanent and progressive injuries.” That last bit is key, because it’s not just about the pain he felt that day—it’s about the long-term fallout. Chronic pain, ongoing therapy, missed work, maybe even physical limitations. That’s the kind of thing that turns a fender bender into a life-altering event.

So why are we in court? Because Choyce wants to be made whole—or at least, as whole as a judge and a checkbook can make him. The legal claim here is straightforward: negligence. That’s lawyer-speak for “you had a duty to drive safely, you didn’t, and now I’m hurt because of it.” The petition lays it out like a prosecutor building a case: Eberhart had a duty to follow traffic laws. She allegedly broke multiple of them. That breach directly caused the crash. The crash caused injuries. Injuries mean damages. Therefore, pay up. It’s a clean, logical chain of blame, and if proven, it’s hard to argue with. No punitive damages are being sought—so Choyce isn’t trying to punish Eberhart into bankruptcy—just compensate him for what he’s lost and what he’ll keep losing.

Now, here’s where things get a little fuzzy: the petition says Choyce is suing for “an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction.” That’s a mouthful, but what it means is that he’s asking for more than $75,000—the federal threshold for cases that cross state lines. But since both parties appear to be Oklahoma residents, that part doesn’t apply. So why say it? Probably because it’s a legal placeholder—lawyers love those—meant to keep the door open for a big number without pinning down an exact figure. Still, we’re clearly not talking about a few dented panels and a rental car. We’re talking medical bills, lost wages, long-term treatment, and pain and suffering. Is $75,000 a lot for that? Honestly? In personal injury terms, it’s not outrageous. A single hospital stay can cost that much. Add in physical therapy, emotional distress, and future care, and suddenly it starts to make sense. This isn’t about revenge—it’s about survival.

And let’s talk about the vibe of this whole thing. The filing comes from the Law Offices of James R. Neal, P.L.L.C.—a firm in Ada that clearly knows its way around a personal injury case. The tone is aggressive, the citations are precise, and the list of damages reads like a therapist’s worst-case scenario. They’re not messing around. But here’s the thing: Rhonda K. Eberhart isn’t represented by a lawyer—at least, not according to the filing. That could mean she’s representing herself, or that she hasn’t responded yet, or that she’s just… hoping this goes away. Which, spoiler alert: it won’t. Once a petition is filed, the clock is ticking. And if she doesn’t respond, Choyce could win by default. So the pressure’s on.

Our take? Look, traffic accidents happen. We’ve all flinched at a yellow light, cursed a distracted driver, or muttered “are you kidding me?” at someone’s baffling lane choice. But when you allegedly break four traffic laws in one move and T-bone another human being, you’ve graduated from “rude driver” to “liable defendant.” The most absurd part? Not the crash itself—that’s tragic, but not unheard of. The absurdity is in the sheer completeness of the failure. It’s like Eberhart didn’t just miss one rule—she apparently ignored the entire concept of shared road responsibility. And now, someone else is paying the price in pain, medical visits, and legal paperwork.

Do we know the full story? Nope. Eberhart hasn’t had her say yet. Maybe there was a medical emergency. Maybe Choyce ran a light. Maybe a deer jumped out. We don’t know. And as entertainers—not lawyers—we’re not here to decide. But what we are rooting for? Clarity. Accountability. And maybe, just maybe, a reminder that when you’re behind the wheel, you’re not just driving a car—you’re piloting a potential weapon. And in Ada, Oklahoma, on a quiet street in March 2024, someone apparently forgot that. Now, the courts get to sort it out. Buckle up.