CJ-2026-1078 - Ivis Turley v. Ryan Craig

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: Ivis Turley didn’t just get rear-ended—she got launched. One minute she’s sitting still, minding her business, trying to make a perfectly legal left turn into a private drive on a quiet stretch of S Western Avenue in Oklahoma City. The next? Bam. Whiplash from behind. Then—somehow, impossibly—smack again, this time head-on from the opposite lane. She didn’t just survive a car crash. She survived a pinball machine set to “chaos mode,” and now she wants $200,000 from the two drivers she says turned her commute into a demolition derby.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Ivis Turley—a resident of Oklahoma County, just trying to get where she’s going like the rest of us mortals. No red flags, no prior drama, just a woman in her car, obeying traffic laws, attempting a left turn like a responsible adult. Then there’s Ryan Craig, allegedly barreling down S Western Avenue from behind, living in Cleveland County but apparently not living up to basic driving standards. And finally, Crystal Wood—traveling northbound in the opposite lane, who, according to the filing, was not only going too fast but also failed to react in time to avoid turning Turley’s fender-bender into a full-blown two-hit cinematic disaster. These aren’t strangers bound by blood or friendship. They’re strangers bound by asphalt, bad decisions, and now, a $200,000 lawsuit.

Here’s how it all went down, according to the petition filed on February 15, 2023—though the real drama unfolded months earlier, on October 25, 2022. Picture this: a crisp fall evening in Oklahoma City. Turley is driving south on S Western Avenue, approaching SW 126th Street. She slows down, signals, and stops—legally, mind you—preparing to turn left into a private driveway. She’s not blocking traffic. She’s not doing donuts. She’s just… waiting. Then comes Ryan Craig, allegedly not paying attention, not braking, not doing any of the things you’re supposed to do when there’s a car stopped in front of you. He rear-ends Turley’s vehicle with enough force to shove her forward and across the center line, directly into oncoming traffic. And wouldn’t you know it? Crystal Wood is coming the other way—speeding, according to the filing—and instead of slowing down or swerving, she plows right into Turley’s now-misplaced car. So let’s recap: Turley gets hit once, gets shoved into the wrong lane, and then gets hit again—this time head-on—by a speed demon who allegedly wasn’t watching the road. It’s like a traffic court version of Final Destination, except the victim survived and is now very ready to sue.

Now, why are we in court? Legally speaking, Turley is claiming negligence—a fancy word for “you screwed up and hurt someone.” But she’s not pointing the finger at just one driver. Oh no. She’s going full double tap, alleging that both Ryan Craig and Crystal Wood failed in their sacred driver’s duty to not turn public roads into death traps. Craig? He’s accused of everything from distracted driving to failing to brake to not keeping a proper lookout. In other words, he either wasn’t paying attention or was texting, eating, or possibly auditioning for Fast & Furious: Oklahoma Drift. Wood, meanwhile, allegedly broke the cardinal rule of driving: speed limits exist. She was reportedly going too fast, didn’t slow down, didn’t swerve, and failed to react to a car that had just been violently shoved into her lane. Turley’s legal team argues that both drivers share the blame—Craig for starting the disaster, Wood for refusing to stop it. And because their combined screw-ups allegedly caused her serious injuries, she’s suing under a theory of joint negligence. There’s even a sprinkle of negligence per se, which means: “Hey, you broke a traffic law, and that automatically makes you liable.” Bonus points for dramatic flair.

So what does Turley want? A cool $200,000—half in actual damages, half in punitive damages. Let’s break that down. The first $100,000 is meant to cover her real, tangible losses: medical bills, pain and suffering, lost wages, therapy, prescriptions, the whole exhausting aftermath of being in two collisions in under ten seconds. The other $100,000? That’s the “you were that reckless” bonus. Punitive damages aren’t about paying for injuries—they’re about punishing bad behavior. And Turley’s team wants to send a message: if you’re going to turn a routine left turn into a multi-vehicle catastrophe, you’d better be ready to pay for it. Now, is $200,000 a lot? In the world of personal injury lawsuits, it’s not outrageous—especially if she’s got medical records showing long-term injuries. But for a crash on a suburban Oklahoma City street, with no mention of fatalities or life-altering disabilities in the filing? It’s definitely on the ambitious side. Still, when your body gets tossed around like a ragdoll in a dual collision, ambition feels justified.

Here’s the kicker: this case was already filed once, then dismissed “by operation of law”—legal speak for “someone missed a deadline.” But thanks to Oklahoma’s re-filing statute, Turley got a second chance, and she’s swinging for the fences. She’s demanding a jury trial, which means this isn’t just about money—it’s about drama. She wants twelve of her peers to look these two drivers in the eye and say, “Yeah, you messed up.” And honestly? The most absurd part isn’t even the crash. It’s the sheer audacity of both defendants allegedly failing in exactly the way you’re taught not to in Driver’s Ed. Craig didn’t stop. Wood didn’t slow down. And Turley? She was just… there. A human pin in this vehicular pinball game. We’re not rooting for anyone to get rich off a car crash. But we are rooting for basic competence on the roads. If this case teaches us anything, it’s that one distracted driver can start a chain reaction—but it takes two to make it catastrophic. And if justice has a speed limit, these two might’ve just blown right past it.

Case Overview

$200,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Thomas J. Steece

Oklahoma Legal Services, PLLC

Relief Sought

$100,000 Monetary

$100,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Ivis Turley individual
Rep: Thomas J. Steece - OBA #11531

Defendants

Ryan Craig individual
Crystal Wood individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	negligence	Plaintiff alleges injuries and damages resulting from a collision involving Defendants

Petition Text

1,437 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA IVIS TURLEY, individually; Plaintiff, v. RYAN CRAIG, individually; and CRYSTAL WOOD, individually, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff Ivis Turley, individually, and hereby submits the following causes of action against Defendant Ryan Craig, individually, and Defendant Crystal Wood, individually, and alleges and states as follows: JURISDICTION/VENUE 1. That Plaintiff Ivis Turley (hereinafter also referred to as “Plaintiff”) was at all relevant times and is a citizen and resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 2. That Defendant Ryan Craig (hereinafter also referred to as “Defendant Craig”) was at all relevant times and is a citizen and resident of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. 3. That Defendant Crystal Wood (hereinafter also referred to as “Defendant Wood”) was at all relevant times and is a citizen and resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 4. That the collision which gives rise to this litigation occurred on or about October 25, 2022, in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma (hereinafter this collision may also be referred to as the “subject collision”). 5. That Plaintiff’s medical treatment occurred in Oklahoma County, OK, and therefore venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 141. 6. That Plaintiff alleges injuries and damages in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) exclusive of costs and interest. 7. This case was previously filed before this Court, but was dismissed by operation of law. This case has been timely refiled pursuant to 12 O.S. § 100. 8. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction and venue over these causes of action and the parties herein. CAUSES OF ACTION – NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff v. Defendant Craig and Defendant Wood COMES NOW the Plaintiff for her Causes of Action against the Defendant and reasserts and realleges, in toto, and adopts by material reference, the allegations contained above and further alleges and states as follows: 9. That on October 25, 2022, Plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle in a reasonable and proper manner and was stopped on southbound S Western Avenue in Oklahoma City, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma near to make a turn into a private drive near the intersection of S Western Avenue and SW 126th Street in Oklahoma City, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. 10. That on October 25, 2022, Defendant Craig was operating his vehicle while traveling southbound on S Western Avenue near the intersection of S Western Avenue and SW 126th Street in Oklahoma City, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. 11. That on October 25, 2022, Defendant Wood was operating her vehicle while traveling northbound on S. Western Avenue near the intersection of S Western Avenue and SW 126th Street in Oklahoma City, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. 12. That as Plaintiff was stopped to attempted her left turn onto the private drive, Defendant Craig’s vehicle struck the rear portions of Plaintiff’s vehicle. 13. That Defendant Wood was exceeding the posted speed limit while traveling northbound on S. Western Avenue near the intersection of S Western Avenue and SW 126th Street in Oklahoma City, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. 14. That the strike caused by Defendant Craig pushed Plaintiff's vehicle from her southbound lane of travel on S Western Avenue into Defendant Wood's lane of travel on S Western Avenue. 15. That Plaintiff's vehicle was struck by both Defendant Craig's vehicle and Defendant Wood's vehicle. 16. That as a result of the subject collision described above, the, Plaintiff sustained bodily injuries and damages. 17. That Plaintiff alleges that the cause of her bodily injuries and damages are due to the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendants, one and/or both. Plaintiff further alleges that Plaintiff's injuries and damages were not caused and/or contributed to by Plaintiff. 18. That Plaintiff additionally alleges liability for the subject collision and Plaintiff's resulting injuries and damages are a result of the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of the Defendant Craig: a. Defendant Craig's careless and/or reckless and/or unsafe operation of a motor vehicle on the public roadways, so as to cause the subject collision; b. Defendant Craig's failure to exercise due care in the operation of a motor vehicle, so as to cause the subject collision; c. Defendant Craig's failure to utilize and/or use braking and/or steering mechanisms of a motor vehicle so as to avoid the above-mentioned subject collision; d. Defendant Craig’s failure to devote full time and attention to the operation of a motor vehicle on the public roadways so as to cause the subject collision; e. Defendant Craig’s failure to watch for and obey traffic regulations (including posted speed limit signage) for his direction of travel on a public roadway so as to cause the subject collision; f. Defendant Craig’s failure to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully upon the public roadway, and to act in such a manner as to avoid the subject collision; and/or g. Defendant Craig’s operation of a motor vehicle while being distracted in such a manner as to prevent Defendant Craig from stopping, slowing down, yielding and/or operating his vehicle properly and/or in such a manner so as to avoid a collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle. 19. That Plaintiff additionally alleges liability for the subject collision and Plaintiff’s resulting injuries and damages are a result of the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of the Defendant Wood: a. Defendant Wood’s careless and/or reckless and/or unsafe operation of a motor vehicle on the public roadways, so as to cause the subject collision; b. Defendant Wood’s failure to exercise due care in the operation of a motor vehicle, so as to cause the subject collision; c. Defendant Wood’s failure to utilize and/or use braking and/or steering mechanisms of a motor vehicle so as to avoid the above-mentioned subject collision; d. Defendant Wood’s failure to devote full time and attention to the operation of a motor vehicle on the public roadways so as to cause the subject collision; e. Defendant Wood’s failure to watch for and obey traffic regulations (including posted speed limit signage) for her direction of travel on a public roadway so as to cause the subject collision; f. Defendant Wood’s failure to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully upon the public roadway, and to act in such a manner as to avoid the subject collision; and/or g. Defendant Wood’s operation of a motor vehicle while being distracted in such a manner as to prevent Defendant Wood from stopping, slowing down, yielding and/or operating his vehicle properly and/or in such a manner so as to avoid a collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle. 20. That, in addition to the common law acts of negligence set forth above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for the Plaintiff’s bodily injuries and damages under the theory of negligence per se, including violations of applicable statutes/regulations/ordinances. 21. That as a result of the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendants, one and/or both, Plaintiff has sustained permanent and painful bodily injuries and damages; has incurred and/or will incur in the future reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment of her injuries; has incurred and/or will incur in the future medical expenses associated with reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment; has suffered and will suffer in the future emotional and/or physical pain and suffering; has suffered and/or will suffer or realize in the future loss of income and revenues; has suffered and/or will suffer loss of enjoyment of life from the injuries/damages sustained in a total amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) actual damages, exclusive of costs and interest. 22. Plaintiff further alleges that the act(s) and/or conduct and/or omission(s) of the Defendants, one and/or both, were at least reckless and/or amount to even wanton and/or gross negligence. Said reckless and/or grossly negligent and/or wanton conduct would entitle Plaintiff to an award of exemplary or punitive damages against Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff also seeks an award of exemplary or punitive damages as against the Defendant for a sum in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) exclusive of costs and interest. WHEREFORE Plaintiff Ivis Turley prays and demands judgment against Defendant Ryan Craig and Defendant Crystal Wood in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), by way of all legally recognized damages, exclusive of costs and interest, along with any and all further relief justified in the premises. Respectfully submitted, Thomas J. Steece - OBA #11531 OKLAHOMA LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC 12313 Hidden Forest Blvd. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73142 (T) 405-943-8300 (F) 405-603-7112 (E) [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF