Monica (Keith) Lam v. David Kinney

Let’s cut straight to the absurdity: a man turned left into oncoming traffic, plowed into a car, injured a passenger, and now—two years later—someone has to write a legal document about it like this isn’t something that probably happened in the background of a Law & Order: SVU episode while detectives argued about a serial killer. But here we are. Welcome to Crazy Civil Court, where the stakes are lower, the drama is pettier, and the crashes are just as preventable.

Monica (Keith) Lam wasn’t even driving. She was just… there. A passenger, minding her own business, riding east on NW 150th Street in Oklahoma City on a perfectly ordinary February day in 2023—February 27th, to be exact, because someone, somewhere, had the foresight to write that down. She was presumably chatting, scrolling, maybe humming along to the radio. Then—BAM. A car cuts across traffic, turns west directly into the eastbound lane, and smacks right into the front of the vehicle she’s in. The driver of that car? One David Kinney. A man who, according to the legal filing, either misjudged the entire concept of traffic flow or briefly believed he was starring in a Fast & Furious spinoff titled “Left Turn: Reckless Origins.”

Now, who are these people? Well, Monica Lam is a private citizen, represented by David W. Van Meter of the Van Meter Law Firm, which sounds like a name a superhero lawyer would use in a legal drama where every episode ends with a courtroom mic drop. She’s not suing for her car—she wasn’t driving. She’s suing because she got hurt. As for David Kinney? He’s just… David Kinney. No attorney listed. No grand backstory. Just a guy who allegedly committed a textbook traffic fail and now has a lawsuit in his name. Whether he’s a repeat offender, a distracted driver, or just someone who had one very bad Tuesday—we don’t know. But based on the allegations, his driving decisions that day were… questionable, to say the least.

So what actually happened? On February 27, 2023, Monica Lam was a passenger in a vehicle traveling east on NW 150th Street. David Kinney, operating another vehicle, attempted to make a left turn—west—directly into the eastbound lane. That’s not just a bad move; that’s a how-do-you-even-get-a-driver’s-license move. It’s like trying to walk backward into a moving escalator. It’s not going to end well. And it didn’t. Kinney’s car collided with the front of the vehicle carrying Lam, causing enough force to result in personal injuries. We don’t know if she broke a bone, got whiplash, or just spent the next three weeks unable to turn her head without wincing like a dramatic soap opera character—but we do know she ended up with medical bills and pain. And in the world of civil court, pain plus paperwork equals lawsuit.

Now, why are they in court? Because Monica Lam’s lawyer is arguing that David Kinney wasn’t just a little careless—he was legally negligent. And not in the “oops, my bad” kind of way, but in the “you violated multiple traffic laws so badly that the law itself says you were negligent” kind of way. This is called negligence per se, a fancy Latin term that basically means: “You broke the law, the law exists to prevent this exact thing, and this exact thing happened—so congrats, you’re on the hook.”

The petition lists a whole buffet of traffic violations allegedly committed by Kinney: he didn’t make his turn close to the right-hand curb (which is, like, Driving 101), he failed to keep a proper lookout (maybe he was texting, maybe he was reaching for a soda, maybe he saw a squirrel—no excuse), he didn’t maintain a safe speed (again, not rocket science), he didn’t brake or steer to avoid the crash (which raises the question: what were you doing, David?), and he failed to “devote full time and attention” to driving—yes, that’s an actual law in Oklahoma City, and yes, it sounds like something your mom yells when you’re scrolling TikTok at a red light.

All of these alleged violations, the filing argues, weren’t just minor infractions—they directly caused the crash and Monica Lam’s injuries. So this isn’t a “he cut me off and I got startled” kind of case. This is a “he violated at least five different traffic laws and then hit me” kind of case. And in civil court, that’s a winning combo—legally speaking.

Now, what does Monica Lam want? She’s seeking in excess of $10,000 in actual damages. That includes medical expenses (doctor visits, imaging, physical therapy, etc.) and pain and suffering (the legal term for “I hurt and it sucked”). Is $10,000 a lot? Well, for a car crash injury, it’s not exactly life-changing money—especially if there were serious medical treatments involved. But it’s also not chump change. It’s enough to cover a hospital ER visit, some follow-up care, and still leave room for compensation for the sheer annoyance of being injured because someone else couldn’t execute a basic left turn. And remember: this is the minimum she’s asking for. “In excess of $10,000” means it could be $10,001 or $15,000—depends on what the evidence shows. But notably, she’s not asking for punitive damages (those are meant to punish really bad behavior), she’s not demanding a jury trial (so this might get settled quietly), and she’s not seeking some dramatic court order telling Kinney to never drive again. This is a straightforward “you messed up, now pay for what you broke” kind of ask.

And honestly? That’s what makes this case so perfectly civil court. It’s not about revenge. It’s not about dragging someone through the mud. It’s about accountability. You broke traffic laws. A crash happened. Someone got hurt. Now, foot the bill. It’s like the universe’s way of saying, “Hey, remember when you were supposed to check for oncoming traffic? Yeah. That mattered.”

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t that the crash happened—traffic is a daily miracle of human coordination, and sometimes it fails. The absurd part is that we need a lawsuit to enforce basic driving etiquette. That David Kinney, presumably a licensed driver, somehow made it through driver’s ed, passed a test, and then proceeded to violate five traffic laws in a single maneuver. How do you forget all the rules at once? Did he black out? Was there a raccoon on the dashboard? We may never know. But what we do know is that Monica Lam was just trying to get from point A to point B, and ended up with medical bills and a trip to the courthouse instead.

We’re not rooting for anyone to get rich off this. But we are rooting for the idea that if you’re going to operate a two-ton vehicle, you owe it to the rest of us to, you know, not cause collisions. It’s not much to ask. And if you do mess up? Own it. Pay the $10,000. Take a defensive driving course. Maybe consider public transit.

Because honestly, David Kinney? You’re lucky this is just a civil suit. If this were a reality TV show, you’d be getting a Lifetime Achievement in Bad Driving award.