CJ-2026-00050 - Penny Johnson v. Becco Contractors, Inc.

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest: most of us worry about texting drivers, potholes, or maybe a deer jumping out of nowhere. But Penny Johnson? She was just driving down the road in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, minding her own business, when—BAM—a giant bolt came out of nowhere, smashed her windshield, and nearly blinded her. Yes, a flying construction bolt, like something out of a Looney Tunes cartoon, turned her car into a crime scene and her commute into a medical nightmare. And now, she’s suing not one, not two, but seven construction companies and one foreman, because apparently, when you’re in charge of a highway rehab project, you’re also in charge of making sure your hardware doesn’t turn into shrapnel.

Penny Johnson is a regular resident of Washington County—no superhero background, no construction experience, just a person trying to get from point A to point B. The defendants, on the other hand, are a whole alphabet soup of contractors: Becco Contractors, Inc., the general contractor running the show; Jerry Alexander, the on-site foreman; and a parade of subcontractors including Direct Traffic Control, Impact Contractors, Traffic & Lighting Systems (TLS), Gary Crain, Inc., and G&L Rebar, LLC. Together, they were supposed to be rehabbing a bridge on Southeast Adams Boulevard—a job that, if done right, should make the road safer, not turn it into a demolition derby. But somewhere between the blueprints and the bolt bins, things went off the rails. Or rather, onto the road.

Here’s how the chaos unfolded: On February 14, 2024—Valentine’s Day, for those keeping track—Penny was driving eastbound on Adams Boulevard, approaching the construction zone. No storms, no reckless driving, no suspicious activity. Then—BANG. A loud noise. Her vision went dark. Glass shards were everywhere. She didn’t know if she’d blacked out or just been temporarily blinded by the impact. She managed to stop the car and call 911. When Officer J. McWilliams arrived, he found a windshield that looked like it had survived a grenade, glass scattered like confetti, and—wait for it—a large bolt chilling near the scene like it hadn’t just committed vehicular assault. And not just any bolt: photos taken that day show multiple bolts of the same kind still sitting on the construction site, like construction confetti that nobody bothered to clean up.

Now, you’d think the first response from the construction crew would be, “Oh no, we’re so sorry, let’s get you medical help.” But Jerry Alexander, the foreman, initially denied the bolt even came from their site. Classic. It wasn’t until pressed that he admitted, “Yeah, okay, maybe it was ours,” and promised to file a report. Real smooth, Jerry. Meanwhile, Penny wasn’t just dealing with a cracked windshield—she’s claiming permanent and degenerative injuries. That means pain, vision issues, emotional trauma, and a life that’s been upended by something she never saw coming—literally.

So why are we in court? Because Penny’s lawyers, from the firm Smolen & Roytman (who clearly love a dramatic petition), are saying this wasn’t just bad luck—it was negligence. And not just regular negligence, but a full trifecta of legal drama. First, negligence: the contractors had a duty to keep the construction zone safe, inspect for hazards, warn drivers, and, you know, not let giant bolts fly into traffic. They failed on all counts. Second, res ipsa loquitur—a fancy Latin phrase that basically means “the thing speaks for itself.” You don’t normally get hit by bolts while driving unless someone screwed up. The fact that it happened at all suggests negligence, even if we can’t pinpoint exactly who dropped the bolt. And third, vicarious liability—meaning the companies are on the hook for their employees’ mistakes. Jerry Alexander was Becco’s guy, so Becco pays. And all those subcontractors? Their workers were on site, so they’re responsible too. It’s like a construction version of “you break it, you buy it”—except the “it” is a person’s health.

Now, what does Penny want? A cool $150,000—split evenly between $75,000 in actual damages (medical bills, pain, suffering, lost wages, the whole nightmare package) and another $75,000 in punitive damages. And let’s be real: $150k sounds like a lot until you realize we’re talking about permanent injuries from a flying bolt. Medical care isn’t cheap. Therapy isn’t free. And punitive damages? Those aren’t about paying her back—they’re about punishing the companies for being so careless that their worksite became a danger zone. In Oklahoma, you can ask for punitive damages when the behavior is “willful, wanton, and reckless.” And let’s face it: if you’re running a construction project and you don’t secure your bolts, that’s not just sloppy—it’s borderline criminal. So is $150k excessive? For losing your vision, your peace of mind, and your sense of safety on the road? Honestly, it might be under the damage.

Our take? Look, construction zones are messy. We get it. But there’s a difference between sawdust and loose rebar, and a flying bolt is way past the line of acceptable risk. The most absurd part? That Jerry Alexander first denied it and then backtracked when confronted with evidence. It’s like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and saying, “I didn’t eat it… but okay, maybe I did, but the jar was open!” And the fact that multiple bolts were photographed on-site after the accident? That’s not just negligence—that’s a systemic failure. These companies had multiple chances to clean up their mess and didn’t. And now, Penny’s paying the price.

We’re rooting for Penny. Not because we hate construction crews (shoutout to the hardworking folks who build our roads), but because no one should have to worry about becoming a human piñata while driving to the grocery store. This case is a wake-up call: safety isn’t optional. It’s the entire point. And if these companies had treated it that way, maybe Penny would’ve just had a boring commute instead of a lawsuit. Here’s hoping the jury sees it the same way—and maybe makes someone finally secure their hardware. With, like, a lock. Or common sense.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Daniel E. Smolen

Smolen & Roytman

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Penny Johnson individual

Defendants

Becco Contractors, Inc. business
Jerry Alexander individual
Direct Traffic Control, Inc. business
Impact Contractors, LLC business
Traffic & Lighting Systems, Inc. business
Gary Crain, Inc. business
G&L Rebar, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence	Plaintiff claims defendants were negligent in failing to keep the construction zone safe and free of hazards.
2	Res Ipsa Loquitur	Plaintiff claims defendants are liable for negligence under a theory of res ipsa loquitur.
3	Respondent Superior/Vicarious Liability	Plaintiff claims defendants are liable for the actions and omissions of their employees.

Petition Text

1,422 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA PENNY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. 1) BECCO CONTRACTORS, INC., a Domestic For Profit Business Corporation, 2) JERRY ALEXANDER, an Individual, 3) DIRECT TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC., a Domestic For Profit Business Corporation, 4) IMPACT CONTRACTORS, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, 5) TLS GROUP, INC., d/b/a TRAFFIC & LIGHTING SYSTEMS, a Domestic For Profit Business Corporation, 6) GARY A. CRAIN, INC., a Domestic For Profit Business Corporation, and 7) G&L REBAR, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Defendants. Case No.: CJ-2026-50 ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Penny Johnson, and for her causes of action against the Defendants, Becco Contractors, Inc., Jerry Alexander, Direct Traffic Control, Inc., Impact Contractors, LLC, Traffic & Lighting Systems, Inc., Gary Crain, Inc., and G&L rebar, LLC, submits and sets forth as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Washington County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Becco Contractors, Inc., ("Becco") is a Domestic for-profit business corporation headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Jerry Alexander is a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, and at all times relevant herein, was a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 4. Defendant Direct Traffic Control Systems, Inc. is a domestic for-profit business corporation. 5. Defendant Impact Contractors, LLC is a domestic limited liability company. 6. Traffic & Lighting Systems, Inc. is a domestic for-profit business corporation. 7. Defendant Gary Crain, Inc. is a domestic for-profit business corporation. 8. Defendant G&L rebar, LLC is a domestic limited liability company. 9. The incident and injuries that give rise to this litigation occurred in Washington County, State of Oklahoma. 10. This Court has jurisdiction, and venue is proper in Washington County, State of Oklahoma. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 11. Paragraphs 1-10 are incorporated herein by reference. 12. On or about February 14, 2024, Plaintiff was in her vehicle, driving eastbound on Southeast Adams Boulevard, approaching the bridge, a construction zone under the supervision and control of Defendants, over Washington Boulevard. 13. Suddenly and without warning, Plaintiff heard a loud noise and subsequently was unable to see. 14. Plaintiff stopped her vehicle where it was and proceeded to call emergency services, while she was still unable to see. To date, Plaintiff is uncertain if she lost consciousness at the time of the incident. 15. Officer J. McWilliams of Bartlesville Police Department arrived at the scene and observed that Plaintiff’s windshield had significant damage and glass shards were found throughout the vehicle. 16. Officer McWilliams discovered a large bolt near the location of the event which caused the damage to the vehicle and Plaintiff’s injuries. 17. Upon information and belief, the bolt originated at Defendants’ construction site. In fact, multiple bolts of the kind that injured Plaintiff were photographed on the day of the accident at Defendant’s construction site. 18. That is, Defendant Becco served as the general contractor for a highway rehabilitation project at the subject intersection. Defendants Direct Traffic Control, Inc., Impact Contractors, LLC, Traffic & Lighting Systems, Inc., Gary Crain, Inc., and G&L rebar, LLC all served as sub-contractors for this project. 19. Defendants collectively were responsible for maintaining the safety of the construction site, including the security and maintenance of bolts such as the one that injured Plaintiff. 20. Defendants were additionally responsible for performing and completing their work in a safe and non-negligent manner that did not create risks such as the one that affected Plaintiff. 21. At all relevant times, Defendants were solely in control of the bolt. They were therefore responsible for ensuring bolts such as the one that injured Plaintiff were not a hazard to drivers such as Plaintiff. 22. Despite this, Defendant Jerry Alexander initially denied that the bolt originated from the construction site. However, upon further inquiry, Defendant Alexander stated to the Bartlesville Police Department that he would make a report since the injury occurred at or around the construction site, and bolts such as the one that injured Plaintiff were photographed at the construction site. 23. The impact of the bolt on Plaintiff’s vehicle caused permanent and degenerative injuries to Plaintiff. 24. At all times, Plaintiff was acting in a safe and prudent manner. 25. Thus, Defendants breached their duty to ensure proper safety and maintenance of the construction site and/or their duty to perform and complete their work in a safe and non-negligent manner. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE 26. Paragraphs 1-25 are incorporated herein by reference. 27. At the time of the incident, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to reasonably to keep their construction zone roadway safe and free of any hazardous condition that may be a danger to Plaintiff and others. 28. Defendants owed Plaintiff and others a duty to inspect their construction zone roadway for hazards that might cause injury to Plaintiff or others, maintain a safe work site, and complete their work in a safe manner. 29. Defendants owed Plaintiff and others a duty to warn of any hazards that Defendants knew or should have known about but that the general public may be unaware of, for the safety of Plaintiff and others. 30. Defendants owed Plaintiff and others a duty to follow the safety rule of using ordinary care. 31. At the time of the incident, Defendants endangered Plaintiff and others by violating these duties, particularly by failing to keep their roadway construction zone clear of any dangers, failing to inspect their roadway construction zone for hazards, failing to warn for such hazards, failing to maintain a safe construction site, and/or failing to complete their work in safe manner. 32. Defendants’ breaches were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. 33. As a result of Defendants’ negligent conduct, Plaintiff suffered serious damages in the form of bodily injuries, mental anguish, physical pain, and other actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). COUNT II – RES IPSA LOQUITOR 34. Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated herein by reference. 35. Defendants are liable for negligence under a theory of res ipsa loquitur. 36. Plaintiff suffered physical pain and suffering, and mental anguish due to Defendants’ acts and omissions related to the bolt which struck Plaintiff and her vehicle. 37. Defendants were solely in control of the subject bolt. 38. The injury suffered by Plaintiff is of the type that does not normally occur while driving in the absence of negligence by Defendants. 39. As a result of Defendants’ negligent conduct, Plaintiff suffered serious damages in the form of bodily injuries, mental anguish, physical pain, and other actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). COUNT III – RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/VICARIOUS LIABILITY 40. Paragraphs 1-39 are incorporated herein by reference. 41. Defendant Jerry Alexander was the foreman for Defendant Becco’s construction roadway site. 42. At all times material to the allegations at issue herein, Defendant Jerry Alexander was an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Becco Contractors, Inc. 43. At all times relevant, Defendant Alexander was acting in the scope of his employment with Defendant Becco. 44. Defendant Becco Contractors, Inc. is therefore liable for the actions and omissions of Defendant Jerry Alexander. 45. Further, Defendants Direct Traffic Control, Inc., Impact Contractors, LLC, Traffic & Lighting Systems, Inc., Gary Crain, Inc., and G&L rebar, LLC maintained employees on the premises of the construction site who were responsible for the bolt which injured Plaintiff. 46. Defendants Direct Traffic Control, Inc., Impact Contractors, LLC, Traffic & Lighting Systems, Inc., Gary Crain, Inc., and G&L rebar, LLC are therefore liable for the acts and omissions their employees at the construction site. 47. As a result of Defendants’ negligent conduct, Plaintiff suffered serious damages in the form of bodily injuries, mental anguish, physical pain, and other actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). COUNT III – PUNITIVE DAMAGES 48. Paragraphs 1-47 are incorporated herein by reference. 49. The willful, wanton, and reckless conduct of all Defendants and total indifference to the safety, health and well-being of Plaintiff, entitles Plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages under Oklahoma law. 50. The acts of all Defendants were wrongful, culpable, and so egregious that punitive damages in a sum that exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) should be awarded against them to set an example to others similarly situated that such inexcusable conduct will not be tolerated in our community. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant her the relief sought including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), with interest accruing from date of filing of suit, punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) each, costs, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court. Respectfully submitted, Daniel E. Smolen, OBA No. 19943 Bryon Helm, OBA No. 33003 Benjamin L. Keller, OBA NO. 36688 SMOLEN & ROYTMAN 701 South Cincinnati Avenue Tulsa, OK 74119 P: (918) 585-2667 F: (918) 585-2669 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff