How Oklahoma's "Inattentive Driving" Statute Strengthens Your Tulsa Claim

Oklahoma law gives accident victims a powerful tool many never learn about: the inattentive driving statute. This statute requires drivers to pay attention at all times, which supports stronger claims under negligence per se.

Understanding how this statute works matters in both insurance negotiations and trial preparation.

Call (918) 398-0934 or contact us online today for a free consultation.

Call (918) 398-0934 or contact us online today for a free consultation.

Key Takeaways for Oklahoma Inattentive Driving Statute

47 O.S. § 11-901b requires drivers to devote their full time and attention to driving and not be inattentive to the duties of operating a motor vehicle, covering any distraction.
A violation triggers negligence per se and establishes breach of duty once proven. You must still demonstrate that the violation occurred, was the proximate cause of the accident, and resulted in damages—the violation helps establish unreasonableness but does not guarantee recovery.
Evidence includes witness testimony of drivers looking away, admissions like “I didn’t see you,” phone records showing activity during the crash, and accident dynamics such as no skid marks. Police citations help but aren’t required.
Oklahoma’s uniform jury instruction on statutory violations allows juries to treat a proven statutory violation as negligence if the statute protects the plaintiff and the harm is the type intended, which can lead to faster, higher settlements.
Recent legislative changes, including House Bill 2263, effective November 1, 2025, ban handheld phone use in active school and construction zones while enhanced privacy protections prevent law enforcement from accessing phone data without warrants, making civil litigation the primary path for obtaining phone records.

What Oklahoma’s Inattentive Driving Statute Actually Says

Section 47 O.S. § 11-901b requires drivers to devote full time and attention to driving and not be inattentive to the duties of operating the vehicle. The statute establishes a legal duty of continuous attention while operating a vehicle, though courts consider the reasonableness of distraction duration and context when evaluating claims. Momentary lapses become subject to evidentiary weighing, with factors like the specific circumstances and driving conditions affecting how violations are assessed.

“Duties of operating the motor vehicle” encompass watching the road, observing traffic signals, monitoring surrounding vehicles and pedestrians, controlling speed, and maintaining lane position. The statute covers all distraction sources; texting, phone calls, eating, grooming, passenger conversations, adjusting controls, reaching for objects, and daydreaming all violate the attention requirement.

Recent Legislative Developments

While 47 O.S. § 11-901b remains foundational, recent legislative efforts expand distracted driving prohibitions. House Bill 2263, effective November 1, 2025, specifically bans handheld cellphone use in active school and construction zones. This law prohibits drivers from holding phones in these high-risk areas while allowing hands-free use through voice commands or Bluetooth. The legislation reflects Oklahoma’s increasing focus on distracted driving safety in zones where vulnerable populations and workers face heightened risks.

How This Differs From Specific Distraction Bans

Many states prohibit only texting while driving, leaving other distractions to common law negligence claims. Oklahoma’s approach addresses distraction comprehensively rather than targeting individual behaviors.

When technology creates new distraction sources, specific prohibitions become outdated quickly. Oklahoma’s attention requirement adapts automatically because the standard focuses on the driver’s mental state, not specific devices.

This breadth strengthens claims involving any inattentive behavior. Whether the driver was applying makeup, eating breakfast, or staring at scenery, the same statutory violation applies.

Understanding Negligence Per Se and Why It Matters

Under common law negligence, plaintiffs must prove duty, breach, causation, and injury. Because juries decide what “reasonable” means, outcomes can be uncertain.

Negligence per se changes this framework: when a statute sets a safety standard, a violation automatically proves breach and replaces a jury’s reasonableness judgment once the violation is demonstrated.

The elements for negligence per se claims are:

The defendant violated a safety statute
The plaintiff belongs to the class the statute protects
The injury resulted from the type of harm the statute addresses
The statutory violation proximately caused the plaintiff’s damages

The violation itself establishes unreasonableness once proven. However, plaintiffs must still demonstrate through evidence that the violation occurred, that it was the proximate cause of the accident, and that damages resulted. The statutory framework helps establish breach and removes debates about reasonableness, but it does not create automatic liability or guarantee recovery. Evidence remains critical to proving each element.

When drivers violate 47 O.S. § 11-901b, accident victims who prove the violation automatically satisfy the duty and breach elements, shifting focus to causation and damages.

Practical Impact on Your Tulsa Case

This burden shift creates substantial advantages throughout case development. During settlement negotiations, citing the statute demonstrates you’re asserting an objective legal violation, not merely arguing the other driver acted carelessly.

Defense attorneys cannot argue their client’s inattention was reasonable because Oklahoma law declares all inattention unreasonable once a violation is proven. They cannot ask juries to sympathize with momentary distractions because the statute makes no exception for brief lapses, though the duration and context of inattention affects whether courts find a violation occurred.

At trial, judges instruct juries that statutory violations equal negligence. The Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions tell jurors that if they find the defendant violated the statute, they must find the defendant breached the duty of care.

Tulsa County juries see these instructions regularly in car accident cases. The doctrine is established practice that shapes how cases get evaluated from initial demand through verdict.

Evidence That Proves Inattentive Driving Under the Statute

Proof requires documentation that the driver failed to maintain attention. Courts look for objective facts about where the driver was focused before impact and link observable behavior and physical evidence to the lapse.

Witness Observations and Driver Admissions

Other drivers may observe distracted behavior before accidents occur. Witnesses might report drivers looking down, holding phones, making motions consistent with texting, or turning to passengers. Promptly documented, these observations provide direct evidence of inattention.

Statements drivers make at accident scenes often establish statutory violations directly. “I didn’t see you” proves inattention to proper lookout duties. “I was looking at my GPS” admits focus shifted from driving to other activities.

These admissions appear in police reports when officers document conversations with drivers. Spontaneous statements carry particular credibility because drivers haven’t yet considered legal implications.

Physical Evidence and Accident Dynamics

Tangible items and crash patterns reveal what the driver was doing in the seconds before impact and objectively supplement witness and driver statements.

Investigators look for phones, food containers, makeup items, or documents suggesting distraction sources. A phone found in the driver’s lap after impact suggests it was being held during the collision.

Modern vehicles contain event data recorders capturing pre-crash speed, braking, and steering inputs. While these devices don’t record phone use, they show whether drivers attempted evasive action before impact.

Rear-end collisions on the BA Expressway with no skid marks suggest the driver never saw stopped traffic. An attentive driver who observes brake lights brakes; the absence of marks indicates inattention.

Lane drift accidents where vehicles slowly cross lines without correction suggest drivers weren’t monitoring lane position. Accidents at controlled intersections where drivers run red lights without braking show failure to observe traffic controls.

Objective driving cues investigators assess:

Presence or absence of pre-impact braking
Lane position consistency and steering inputs
Signal use versus movement
Traffic control compliance in the approach zone

Cell Phone Records and Metadata

Carrier and device records can establish phone activity at the crash time. Although they require legal process, timestamps often align with police or witness timelines.

Phone records obtained through discovery show call activity, text timestamps, and data usage. A text sent at the accident time evidences phone use, though expert interpretation is needed.

Enhanced privacy protections under Oklahoma’s new laws prohibit law enforcement from accessing or downloading phone data without a warrant or probable cause. This means police cannot examine driver phones at accident scenes or during traffic stops without court authorization.

Attorneys issue subpoenas to carriers after filing suit and file motions for forensic examination of devices when necessary. This process requires proper legal procedure but provides access to metadata and usage logs that law enforcement cannot obtain without warrants.

How Attorneys Use the Statute in Settlement Negotiations

When a statutory violation is clear, settlement negotiations change. Adjusters treat negligence per se claims as higher risk and adjust valuation accordingly.

Negotiation Leverage and Demand Letters

Citing Oklahoma’s inattentive driving statute transforms demand letters from subjective arguments into objective legal assertions. Attorneys state the driver violated Oklahoma law requiring full time and attention to driving.

Demand letters quote the statutory language, explain negligence per se doctrine, present evidence proving the violation, and demonstrate how the statute shifts the burden at trial.

How Statutory Violations Shift Insurer Focus

Sophisticated adjusters know juries will be instructed that statutory violations equal negligence once proven. They understand defendants cannot argue their inattention was reasonable if a violation is established. These factors influence settlement calculations.

Claims backed by statutory violations may draw higher offers than claims relying only on common law negligence, reducing liability disputes and shifting negotiations toward damages.

Comparative Fault Positioning

When cases involve comparative fault allegations against victims, statutory violations strengthen plaintiffs’ positions. Even if plaintiffs share some fault, defendants’ clear statutory violations establish their primary responsibility.

Trial Advantages When Asserting Statutory Violations

Litigation strategy begins with how attorneys frame claims in initial pleadings. Asserting negligence per se alongside common law negligence preserves important options as the case develops.

Pleading and Discovery Setup

Attorneys plead negligence per se as an alternative theory to common law negligence. This preserves the right to request jury instructions on statutory violations. The pleading specifically cites 47 O.S. § 11-901b and alleges the defendant violated the statute.

Discovery focuses on whether a violation occurred. Interrogatories ask where the defendant’s attention was immediately before impact, and depositions examine what the defendant was doing and whether they saw the victim.

Jury Instructions and Settlement Pressure

Trial presentation emphasizes the objective statutory standard rather than subjective opinions about reasonableness. This shifts the questions juries must answer from “was the driver careless?” to “did the driver violate Oklahoma law?”

Plaintiffs present witness testimony, driver admissions, physical evidence, and expert analysis to show a statutory violation. Judges then use Oklahoma’s pattern instructions on statutory violations.

Defense attorneys cannot argue their client’s inattention was reasonable once a violation is proven. The jury instruction establishes that Oklahoma law makes no exception for brief inattention, though juries still determine whether the evidence demonstrates a violation occurred.

This framework increases settlement pressure as trial approaches. Defense attorneys evaluating jury instruction implications may recommend settlement rather than risking verdicts where liability is essentially established by instruction.

Tulsa-Specific Application and Community Context

Tulsa’s traffic patterns create numerous scenarios where inattentive driving violations occur. The BA Expressway experiences heavy commuter traffic where drivers are tempted to use phones or eat during slow-moving rush hours.

Memorial Drive and 71st Street commercial corridors present visual distractions from businesses and billboards. Downtown’s one-way street system requires continuous attention to navigate correctly.

School zones throughout Tulsa now carry enhanced restrictions under House Bill 2263, where handheld phone use is specifically prohibited during active hours. Construction zones along major routes similarly prohibit handheld devices while work is ongoing.

Tulsa County juries are familiar with distracted driving, which makes statutory-violation claims resonate locally. Tulsa judges apply negligence per se routinely in car accident cases.

FAQ for Oklahoma Inattentive Driving Statute Claims

Does the driver need to receive a citation for the statute to apply in my case?

No citation is required to assert negligence per se in civil litigation. Police citations help prove violations occurred, but their absence doesn’t prevent statutory claims. Civil cases require proof by preponderance of evidence—more likely than not.

What if the driver claims they were paying attention even though the evidence suggests otherwise?

Objective evidence may contradict driver claims. When accident dynamics show an attentive driver would have braked or swerved but the defendant did neither, physical evidence proves inattention regardless of self-serving statements.

How does hands-free phone use affect statutory violation claims?

Hands-free device use through voice commands or Bluetooth is legal under Oklahoma law, including in school and construction zones. However, cognitive distraction from phone conversations may still support negligence claims even without statutory violations.

Can I assert the statute if I also share some fault for the accident?

Oklahoma applies modified comparative negligence, allowing recovery when you’re less than 50% at fault. Even when you share responsibility, the other driver’s clear statutory violation establishes their substantial fault.

How long after my Tulsa accident can I file a claim using the statute?

Oklahoma’s personal injury statute of limitations allows two years from the accident date under 12 O.S. § 95 to file suit. However, evidence preservation should begin immediately.

Strengthening Your Position Through Legal Knowledge

Oklahoma’s inattentive driving statute gives accident victims a legal advantage many never learn about. The statute’s comprehensive approach creates broad applicability to virtually any scenario where drivers fail to maintain attention.

Negligence per se transforms subjective arguments about reasonableness into objective determinations about statutory compliance once violations are proven. This shift eliminates defendants’ primary defense strategy and creates settlement leverage throughout negotiation.

If you suffered injuries in a Tulsa accident caused by an inattentive driver, experienced legal counsel can evaluate how Oklahoma’s statute strengthens your claim. Contact DM Injury Law today at (918) 398-0934 or contact us online for your free consultation. We’re available around the clock and don’t get paid unless we win your case.