CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
TULSA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1068

Suanna Carter v. Aaron McClure

Filed: Mar 9, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest: most people try to avoid getting hit by cars. Suanna Carter, however, just wanted to make it through a holiday traffic light without becoming the final domino in a Fourth of July fender-bender symphony. Instead, she got launched into a medical nightmare, a legal showdown, and a story so rich with lies, license suspensions, and neighborly betrayal that it reads like a sitcom episode written by someone who really hates driving.

Here’s how it went down: Suanna Carter, a Tulsa County resident just trying to enjoy the early evening of July 4, 2025—because apparently even freedom-loving Americans have errands on Independence Day—was driving south on North 9th Street in Broken Arrow. She approached the intersection with East College Street, likely mentally preparing for fireworks, not fender benders. But fate, and Aaron McClure, had other plans. McClure, allegedly behind the wheel of a car owned by his neighbor (or friend? acquaintance? co-conspirator in poor life choices?) Elmer Perez, decided that stop signs were more of a suggestion than a rule. He blew right through it on East College Street, T-boning a northbound vehicle like he was auditioning for Fast & Furious: Suburban Drift. That poor middle car? It didn’t stand a chance. It got shoved into Suanna Carter’s car like a human bowling pin. And just like that, one man’s disregard for traffic laws became Suanna’s personal injury origin story.

Now, you’d think the drama would end with airbags and insurance claims. But no. This isn’t just a car crash. This is a cover-up. Because when the dust settled and the cops showed up, Aaron McClure—who, plot twist, did not have a valid driver’s license—decided the best course of action was to lie. Straight up fabricate an alternate reality where he wasn’t driving. His alibi? “No, officer, it was Elmer Perez driving.” Yes. The owner of the car. The guy who wasn’t even in the vehicle, presumably chilling at home, possibly grilling burgers, definitely not committing insurance fraud. McClure’s story was so flimsy it probably had holes you could drive a whole fleet of suspended-license drivers through. And yet, he doubled down. Not only did he drive illegally, but he then tried to pin it on the guy who owned the car. It’s like blaming the house for the burglary.

But wait—Elmer Perez isn’t exactly a saint in this tale either. According to Suanna’s lawsuit, Perez knew or should have known that McClure wasn’t legally allowed to drive. And yet, he let him get behind the wheel anyway. That’s not just irresponsible—that’s what lawyers call “negligent entrustment,” which sounds fancy but really just means “you handed the keys to someone who shouldn’t have them, and now you’re on the hook too.” It’s like giving a toddler a flamethrower and saying, “Eh, they’ll figure it out.” When the toddler burns down the house, yeah, you’re getting sued. Same energy.

So what’s Suanna actually suing for? A cool $249,000. Let that number marinate. Two hundred forty-nine thousand dollars. That’s not chump change. That’s a down payment on a house in some parts of Oklahoma. That’s ten years of Netflix subscriptions. That’s a lot of therapy sessions. And she’s not just asking for it—she’s demanding it, plus interest, court costs, attorney fees, and—because someone clearly needs to be taught a lesson—punitive damages. That last part is key. Punitive damages aren’t about covering medical bills. They’re about punishment. They’re the legal system’s way of saying, “You didn’t just mess up. You messed up badly, and we want you to feel it.”

Her damages? They’re not just about the car. She’s claiming real, lasting harm: injuries, medical treatment, pain and suffering (both physical and mental—imagine reliving that crash every time you approach a stop sign), lost wages because she couldn’t work, and damage to her personal property. The $249,000 isn’t random—it’s meant to reflect the full weight of what she’s endured. And honestly? In the world of personal injury claims, that number isn’t outrageous. Car accidents can lead to surgeries, chronic pain, PTSD, and long-term disability. If her injuries are serious—say, back trauma, whiplash, or worse—this could be a conservative estimate. But the real kicker isn’t the amount. It’s the audacity of the defendants. One guy drives illegally, crashes, then tries to pin it on his buddy. The other guy enables the whole mess by handing over the keys like it’s a joyride, not a potential crime scene. And now Suanna’s the one stuck with the medical bills, the trauma, and the burden of proving what actually happened.

And let’s talk about the timing. July 4. Fireworks. Crowds. Distractions. Maybe McClure was in a hurry to get to a barbecue. Maybe he thought, “Eh, it’s a holiday, cops won’t care.” But no—someone always cares when you turn a quiet intersection into a demolition derby. And now, instead of celebrating freedom, he’s facing a jury trial, a potential financial gut punch, and the very real possibility that a judge is going to look him in the eye and say, “You lied. You shouldn’t have been driving. And now you’re paying.”

Our take? Look, car accidents happen. People make mistakes. But the lie? The cover-up? That’s what pushes this from “unfortunate incident” to “prime-time drama.” It’s one thing to mess up. It’s another to try to rewrite reality so you don’t have to face the consequences. And the fact that Elmer Perez allegedly went along with it? That’s not loyalty. That’s complicity. This isn’t neighborly support. This is a buddy-system gone very wrong.

We’re not saying Suanna didn’t have Fourth of July plans too. Maybe she was on her way to a fireworks show. Maybe she was picking up ice cream. Whatever she was doing, she deserved to get there in one piece. Instead, she got a crash, a cascade of injuries, and a front-row seat to one of the most transparently ridiculous cover-up attempts in recent memory. So while $249,000 might sound like a lot, it’s not just about the money. It’s about accountability. It’s about making sure that the next time someone with a suspended license thinks, “Eh, I’ll just drive anyway,” they also think, “And if I crash, I can’t just blame my buddy and expect to walk away.”

This case? It’s not just about a car crash. It’s about the absurd lengths people will go to avoid taking responsibility. And if Suanna wins? Honestly, we’ll be cheering. Not because we love lawsuits, but because sometimes, justice needs a little fireworks of its own.

Case Overview

$249,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$249,000 Monetary
$1 Punitive
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 negligence Auto collision and resulting injuries

Petition Text

660 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SUANNA CARTER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. AARON MCCLURE, an individual; and ELMER PEREZ, an individual, Defendants. CJ- 2026 -01068 Case No. CJ-2026- RICHARD HATHCOAT ! ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Suanna Carter, and pursuant to the Oklahoma Expedited Actions Act, 12 O.S. § 1775 et seq., hereby states and alleges the following in support of her causes of action against the above-named Defendants: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. That at all times relevant to the events set forth herein, Plaintiff was a resident and domiciliary of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 2. That at the time of the auto collision giving rise to this litigation, Defendants McClure and Perez were also residents and domicilaries of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 3. This Court has proper jurisdiction pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12 Section 134. FACTS LEADING TO LITIGATION Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs and further states as follows: 4. In the early evening hours of July 4, 2025, Plaintiff was operating her vehicle southbound on North 9th Street near that roadway’s intersection with East College Street in Broken Arrow, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 5. As she approached the intersection, Defendant McClure failed to stop at a stop sign on East College Street, causing him to strike a vehicle driving northbound on North 9th Street, which then struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. 6. That the chain reaction of collisions was caused solely and exclusively by Defendant McClure’s negligence. 7. Moreover, at the time of the collision McClure had a suspended driver’s license and should not have been operating the vehicle in the first place. 8. Lastly, while speaking to investigators and in an attempt to conceal the truth and escape responsibility for his actions, and knowing that he did not have a valid driver’s license, McClure lied and concocted a story that Perez was driving the vehicle at the time of the collision. FACTS CONCERNING AND CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT MCCLURE Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs and further states as follows: 9. As a direct result of Defendant McClure’s negligent acts and omissions, Plaintiff sustained injury, underwent medical care to treat said injuries, incurred medical bills for said treatment, suffered physical and mental pain and suffering, and sustained lost wages, with damages totaling $249,000.00, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorneys fees and costs. 10. Plaintiff also suffered damage to and loss of use of her personal property. 11. As a result of the outstanding claim claims stemming from damage to her property, Plaintiff is entitled to all associated attorneys fees and costs. 12. Moreover, McClure’s act of knowingly driving the vehicle without a valid driver’s license and attempting to conceal the fact that he was driving at the time of the collision warrant the imposition of punitive damages. FACTS CONCERNING AND CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT PEREZ Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs and further states as follows: 13. Defendant Perez was the owner of the vehicle McClure was operating on the date of the collision. 14. That Perez knew, or should have known through the exercise of due care, that Defendant McClure did not have a valid driver’s license and/or was not legally permitted to drive. 15. That McAfee negligently entrusted the subject vehicle to Defendant McClure. 16. Defendant Perez also joined in and attempted to further the manufactured story that McClure was not driving at the time of the collision, thereby warranting the imposition of punitive damages. 17. By filing under the Oklahoma Expedited Actions Act, Plaintiff hereby invokes all rules and parameters set forth in the Act, including but not limited to those which pertain to discovery and trial. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $249,000.00 plus court costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and any further relief this Court deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120th Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458— Telephone 888-572-8263— Facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.