CJ-2026-1061 - Edwin Amaya Diaz v. Charlotte Ann Adams

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: in the pantheon of suburban driving disasters, few rise to the level of sheer spectacle as the July 2024 catastrophe on S. Elm Place in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma—where one woman’s alleged failure to yield allegedly set off a domino effect of destruction, leaving another man with disfigurement, lost wages, and a front-row seat to vehicular chaos. This isn’t just a fender bender. This is a full-blown, cinematic, “how did no one see this coming?” collision involving three vehicles, a private driveway escape artist, and a plaintiff who was just trying to make a left turn like a normal, law-abiding citizen. Instead, Edwin Amaya Diaz got sucker-punched by physics and now wants Charlotte Ann Adams to pay—possibly with punitive damages, which, in civil court, is basically the legal equivalent of saying, “You didn’t just mess up. You meant to mess up.”

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Edwin Amaya Diaz, a regular Oklahoman just minding his business at a stop sign on Iola Street, waiting to turn left onto S. Elm Place. Nothing flashy, nothing reckless—just a dude in a 2013 Cadillac (which, let’s be honest, says more about reliability than ego) trying to get where he needs to go. On the other side is Charlotte Ann Adams, a Broken Arrow resident with a driver’s license and, allegedly, zero regard for traffic laws at a very critical moment. The two weren’t friends, business partners, or exes—just strangers whose lives violently intersected because one of them decided that a stop sign was more of a suggestion than a rule. And then there’s Natalie Rivera, the poor third wheel (literally) in this whole mess—driving southbound on Elm Place when, out of nowhere, Adams allegedly rockets out of a private driveway without yielding, smacks into Rivera, and sends her careening into Diaz like a pinball in a high-stakes game of “whoops, my bad.”

Now, let’s reconstruct the chaos. It’s July 8, 2024. The clock strikes 5:47 p.m.—rush hour purgatory, when everyone’s tired, distracted, and already dreaming of dinner. Diaz is stopped at the stop sign on Iola, doing the right thing: checking for traffic, waiting his turn. He proceeds into the intersection, beginning his left turn onto Elm Place, expecting the road to be clear. Meanwhile, Charlotte Ann Adams—allegedly fresh off a driveway exit with the urgency of someone late to a hostage negotiation—fails to yield to oncoming traffic. There’s no mechanical failure in her car. No fog. No rogue deer. Just her, the road, and a complete disregard for the fact that other people exist. She pulls out, clips Natalie Rivera’s vehicle, and sends it spinning—directly into the passenger side of Diaz’s Cadillac. The filing calls it a “significant collision.” We call it a wrecking ball moment. Diaz didn’t just get sideswiped—he got disfigured. He suffered injuries, pain, suffering, lost income, and what the petition delicately refers to as “other losses,” which we assume includes therapy for his now-justified fear of intersections.

Why are they in court? Because Diaz isn’t just mad—he’s legally mad. His attorneys, Michael D. Denton, Jr. and Austin C. Walters of the Denton Law Firm (motto: “We’ll sue for disfigurement and dignity”), have filed two claims: common law negligence and negligence per se. Let’s break that down for the non-lawyers (which is probably all of us, unless you’re reading this in a deposition). Common law negligence means: “You had a duty to drive safely. You failed. We got hurt. Pay up.” The petition lists a whole buffet of ways Adams allegedly messed up: distracted driving, not looking, not stopping, not yielding, not controlling her car, not taking evasive action. In other words, she failed at every single thing you’re supposed to do behind the wheel. The second claim—negligence per se—is even juicier. That’s when someone breaks a traffic law (like, say, Oklahoma’s rule that you must yield when exiting a private drive), and that violation directly causes harm. And guess what? Adams was cited for failure to yield. So this isn’t just “she might’ve been careless”—it’s “the cops said she broke the law, and boom, here we are.”

Now, what does Diaz want? The petition is coy about the exact dollar amount, saying only that he’s seeking damages “in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction,” which in federal terms means over $75,000. But here’s the spicy part: he’s also demanding punitive damages. And that, folks, is the courtroom equivalent of throwing down the gauntlet. Punitive damages aren’t about covering medical bills—they’re about punishing someone for being especially reckless, malicious, or just plain dumb with intent. The filing even says Adams’ actions showed “malice toward others.” Malice! In a car crash! This isn’t just “oops, my bad”—this is “you drove like you wanted to ruin someone’s life.” And while $75,000 might sound like a lot for a fender bender, we’re talking about disfigurement, lost wages, and long-term pain. In personal injury land, that’s not outrageous—it’s reasonable. But punitive damages? That’s where the jury gets to say, “No, Charlotte, you don’t get to walk away from this with just a slap on the wrist.”

Our take? Look, car crashes happen. People make mistakes. But the most absurd part of this case isn’t the collision—it’s the audacity of pulling out of a driveway without yielding during rush hour like you’re in a TikTok stunt video. The fact that there was no obstruction, no mechanical failure, no excuse—just a woman, a car, and a complete disregard for basic traffic safety—is the kind of negligence that makes insurance adjusters weep. And while we don’t know what Adams was thinking (or if she was thinking at all), the fact that she was cited at the scene gives this case serious credibility. We’re not saying she should lose her house over this—but if the evidence shows she was texting, daydreaming, or just decided that traffic laws were for suckers, then sure, let the jury have fun with punitive damages. We’re rooting for Diaz, not because he’s perfect, but because he was doing everything right—and still got blindsided by someone who treated a public road like her personal runway. In the great American drama of “who’s at fault?”, this one feels less like a mystery and more like a public service announcement: Yield. Or pay.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Michael D. Denton, Jr. and Austin C. Walters

Denton Law Firm

Relief Sought

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Edwin Amaya Diaz individual
Rep: Michael D. Denton, Jr. and Austin C. Walters

Defendants

Charlotte Ann Adams individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	common law negligence	Negligence in operation of vehicle, failure to yield, reckless and gross disregard for others
2	negligence per se	Violation of Oklahoma's Rules of the Road, failure to yield, reckless and careless operation of vehicle

Petition Text

993 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA EDWIN AMAYA DIAZ ) Plaintiff, vs CHARLOTTE ANN ADAMS, Defendant. FILED DISTRICT COURT TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Case No. CJ-2026 March 9, 2026 10:59 AM DON NEWBERRY, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1061 PETITION COMES NOW Edwin Amaya Diaz (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and for his causes of action against Defendant Charlotte Ann Adams (hereinafter “Defendant”), alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant is a resident of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and can be served at 22333 E 68th Street South, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74014. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Venue is proper in this county pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, §141(2) because this is a civil action arising from the use of motor vehicles, and venue shall be in any county of this State where the damages were sustained. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action and these parties pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 2004(F). FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 5. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the preceding paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth. 6. On July 8, 2024, at approximately 5:47 p.m. Natalie Rivera was traveling southbound on S. Elm Place in Broken Arrow, Tulsa County, Oklahoma when without warning, Defendant failed to yield, pulling from a private drive to go south causing a significant collision. 7. At or around the same time, Plaintiff was westbound on Iola Street stopped at a stop sign waiting to turn left. After stopping and proceeding into the intersection to head southbound onto S. Elm Place, the vehicle driven by Natalie Rivera struck the passenger side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. 8. There was no mechanical failure or defect within 2013 Cadillac being operated by Defendant which contributed to or caused the collision. 9. There was no obstruction which prevented Defendant from seeing the traffic coming from her left. 10. Defendant was cited for failure to yield. 11. The careless, reckless and grossly negligent actions and omissions of Defendant was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. 12. The actions and omissions of the Defendant rise to the level of willful, reckless, and gross disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and others. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE 14. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the preceding paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth. 15. Defendant was the holder of a Class D driver license issued by the State of Oklahoma who had a duty to exercise ordinary care in the operation of her vehicle. 16. Defendant breached her duty of care and was negligent in one or more of the following ways: a. Operating the vehicle while distracted; b. Failing to keep a proper lookout; c. Failing to stop at the stop sign; d. Failing to yield; e. Failing to maintain control of her vehicle; or f. Failing to take a proper evasive action. 17. Defendant operated her vehicle in a negligent manner, specifically by failing to yield to oncoming traffic causing a collision with the vehicle driven by Natalie Rivera which resulted in Mrs. River’s vehicle striking Plaintiff’s vehicle. 18. Defendant’s negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the collision and the injuries to Plaintiff. 19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries, disfigurement, loss of income, endured pain and suffering and incurred other losses, all in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code. 20. Further, Defendant’s negligent actions and/or omissions rise to the level of reckless conduct and evidence a disregard for the rights of others, including Plaintiff and evinces malice toward others. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE PER SE - 21. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the preceding paragraphs and allegations as if fully set forth. 22. Defendant, had a duty to follow Oklahoma’s Rules of the Road, codified at OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 11-101, et seq. 23. As set forth in Oklahoma’s Rules of the Road, Defendant, in the operation of her vehicle on Oklahoma roads, had a duty to: a. To refrain from operating her vehicle in a reckless, careless, or wanton manner without regard for the safety others (OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 11-901(A); b. Yield to oncoming traffic from the private drive (OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 11-403) and/or c. Devote her full time and attention to driving (OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 11-901b). 24. Defendant breached her duty owed to others, including Plaintiff, in one or more of the following ways: a. Operating her vehicle while distracted; b. Failing to keep a proper lookout; c. Failing to maintain control of her vehicle; d. Failing to yield; and/or e. Failing to take proper evasive action. 25. Defendant was cited for (1) Failure to Yield in violation of OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 11-403. Citation 24-012186. 26. Defendant’s failure or refusal to obey and carry out the duties imposed upon her by Oklahoma’s Rules of the Road caused a violent, catastrophic collision which injured Plaintiff. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the named Defendant herein, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries, disfigurement, loss of income, endured pain and suffering, and incurred other losses, all in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code. 28. Further, Defendant’s negligent actions and omissions rise to the level of reckless conduct and evidence a disregard for the rights of others, including Plaintiff, and evinces malice toward others, for which punitive damages should be awarded by a jury. Petition Page 4 of 5 WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for actual damages and for punitive damages, all in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, together with Plaintiff’s costs, expenses and other such relief as may be equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Michael D. Denton, Jr., OBA #13939 Austin C. Walters, OBA #33363 DENTON LAW FIRM 925 West State Highway 152 Mustang, Oklahoma 73064 Telephone: (405) 376-2212 Facsimile: (405) 376-2262 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF