PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

RUSSELL SPARKS, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GREAT NECK SAW 

MANUFACTURERS, INC.; 

O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, 

LLC d/b/a O’REILLY AUTO PARTS; 

and O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., 

 Defendants.

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.: ________ 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

 COMES NOW, Plaintiff RUSSELL SPARKS and files this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, 

complaining of Defendants GREAT NECK SAW MANUFACTURERS, INC.; O’REILLY AUTO 

ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a “O’REILLY AUTO PARTS”; and O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC. 

and would respectfully show the Court as follows: 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff RUSSELL SPARKS is a natural person and is a resident of Rowlett, Dallas 

County, Texas. The last three digits of his Texas Drivers’ License is 078 and the last three digits 

of his Social Security number are 460. 

2. Defendant GREAT NECK SAW MANUFACTURERS, INC. (“Great Neck”) is a 

non-resident corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, qualified 

to do business in the State of Texas, and engaging in business in the State of Texas within the 

meaning of section 17.042 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Great Neck’s principal 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 2 

place of business is 165 E. 2nd Street, Mineola, NY, 11501 but may be served with process by 

serving the Texas Secretary of State at 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, TX 78701, as its agent for 

service because this Defendant engages in business in Texas but has not designated or maintained 

a resident agent for service of process in Texas. 

3. Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a O’Reilly Auto Parts is a Foreign 

Limited Liability Company, doing business in the state of Texas at all relevant times, and may be 

served with process by and through its registered agent for process CT Corporation System, 1999 

Bryan Street, Ste 900, Dallas, TX 75201. 

4. Defendant O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. is a Foreign Corporation, doing business in 

the state of Texas at all relevant times, and may be served with process by and through its registered 

agent for process CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Ste 900, Dallas, TX 75201. 

Hereinafter Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a O’Reilly Auto Parts and O’Reilly 

Automotive, Inc. will be referred to collectively as “O’Reilly Defendants”. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction is proper in this case pursuant to 28 USC § 1332. The amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different States. Specifically, Plaintiff is a 

citizen of Texas, Defendant Great Neck is a citizen of New York, and the O’Reilly Defendants are 

citizens of Missouri. 

6. Pursuant to 28 US Code § 1931, venue is proper because a substantial part of the 

events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Dallas County, Texas, which is located in the Northern 

District of Texas – Dallas Division as the O’Reilly Defendants’ negligent acts and/or omissions 

took place in Dallas County. 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 3 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 7. On May 28, 2020, Plaintiff Russell Sparks went to the O’Reilly auto parts store 

located at 4001 Lakeview Parkway, Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas, 75088, Store 702. He rented 

item #67051 – an EverTough MacPherson strut spring compressor (model 67051). The cost to rent 

this item was $54.99. He was given invoice number 0702-358270. The O’Reilly Defendants failed 

to inspect the strut spring compressor before renting it to Mr. Sparks to determine if it was in proper 

working condition. The strut spring compressor at issue (“the Great Neck Product” or “the strut 

spring compressor”) was manufactured by Defendant Great Neck. 

 8. The following day, on May 29, 2020, Mr. Sparks was installing a lowering kit on 

his pickup truck, a 2018 Chevy Silverado, using the strut spring compressor. He had the coil springs 

compressed with the EverTough MacPherson strut spring compressor when the threaded rod of one 

of the strut springs snapped, breaking the bolt into two pieces. 

 9. At the time the strut spring compressor broke, the spring had already been partially 

tightened down. Mr. Sparks was not touching or turning the wrench when the spring gave way, 

snapping in two in the bolt of the threaded rod, and forcing Mr. Sparks’ hand down to the concrete, 

crushing his left middle finger down between the spring and the cement floor. As a result, Mr. 

Sparks lost a portion of his left middle finger. Furthermore, he still has no feeling in the remaining 

portion of his finger. 

CAUSES OF ACTION – STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – Great Neck

10. At all times material to this action, Defendant Great Neck was in the business of 

designing, testing, approving, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling and/or supplying 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 4 

EverTough MacPherson strut spring compressors, such as the one in question, for use in Texas and 

elsewhere throughout the United States. 

11. At the time the Great Neck Product left the control of Defendant Great Neck, it was 

defectively designed and/or manufactured and in an unreasonably dangerous to a person who might 

reasonably be expected to use it. Specifically, the Great Neck Product was defective because the 

design of the device was insufficient to withstand the pressure from normal use over the lifetime of 

the product. 

12. Upon information and belief, the Great Neck Product developed a crack in the 

threaded rod during repeated use due to a defective design and/or manufacturing process, allowing 

it to prematurely fail, known to be a cause of serious personal injuries. The Great Neck Product 

sustained a fatigue fracture in the threaded rod / bolt, which developed over time with the final 

catastrophic failure resulting in injuries and damages to Plaintiff. It is widely known, including to 

Defendant Great Neck, that failures in strut spring compressors occur frequently and the product 

has been referred to as the “widow maker.” 

13. Furthermore, there were safer alternative designs to eliminate or significantly reduce 

such a possibility, including but not limited to, using material with a greater hardness or strength 

that would not prematurely fail. These alternatives were safer because the risks of injury from the 

Great Neck Product would be eliminated or significantly reduced in relation to the risk with the use 

of the product, had the produced been designed and/or manufactured in a way that the metal 

threaded rod would not prematurely fatigue and/or crack over time and during the life of the 

product. These alternatives would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of injury without 

impairing the strut spring compressor’s utility. These alternatives were technologically-feasible and 

economically feasible alternatives. The Great Neck Product should have been designed and 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 5 

manufactured in a way that it could withstand the pressure being put on the product with repeated 

uses over the lifetime of the product, rather than prematurely failing. 

14. Further, the Great Neck Product was defectively marketed and unreasonably 

dangerous to a person who might reasonably be expected to use it because it lacked adequate, 

sufficient, conspicuous, and unambiguous warnings and instructions concerning the risks, dangers, 

hazards, and harms presented by its use, and a reasonable means to reduce such risks, dangers, 

hazards, and harms. Specifically, there were no warnings provided by Great Neck to the user on the 

risks, dangers, hazards, and harms presented by use of the Great Neck Product, nor did it provide 

any information on the reasonable means to reduce such risks, dangers, hazards, and harms, 

including but not limited to warnings that the threaded rod / bolt may fail, causing the product to 

snap in two under pressure. 

15. The Great Neck Product was expected to reach, and did reach, the user and/or 

consumer without substantial change to the condition in which it was sold. The strut spring 

compressor was in substantially the same defective condition on the date of the incident, as it was 

when it was placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Great Neck. 

16. It was foreseeable to Defendant Great Neck that the strut spring compressor could, 

and would, be used in the manner that it was being used at the time of the incident at issue. 

17. The design and marketing defects discussed above were a proximate and/or 

producing cause of the incident and the severe injuries suffered by Plaintiff. 

18. The Great Neck product was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would have 

been contemplated by the ordinary user of the product, with the ordinary knowledge common to 

the relevant community of users as to the product’s characteristics. 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 6 

19. Defendant Great Neck knew, or should have known, of the dangers of a defectively 

designed and marketed strut spring compressors, such as the one in question. Defendant Great 

Neck, among other acts, did not adequately design the product, did not adequately test to determine 

whether design and/or marketing defects existed, and did not adequately warn end users, and 

intermediary users of the product of the potential existence and dangers of such defects. 

20. The design and marketing defects of the Great Neck Product, as described above, 

rendered it unreasonably dangerous and prevented it from functioning as it was intended because 

the dangers of fatigue failure in the rod / bolt were not safely and adequately reduced or eliminated. 

CAUSES OF ACTION – NEGLIGENCE as to Great Neck

21. Plaintiff incorporates his “Strict Products Liability” allegations against Defendant 

Great Neck from above. Defendant Great Neck had a duty to act reasonably and prudently in the 

design, marketing, and/or sale of the strut spring compressor in question. Defendant Great Neck 

breached this duty by, among other acts and/or omissions, designing, marketing and/or selling a 

strut spring compressor -- the product in question, with design and marketing defects, as described 

above, that rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and prevented the product from 

functioning as it was intended. 

22. Defendant Great Neck knew, or should have known, of the dangers of a defectively 

designed and/or marketed strut spring compressor. These dangers included, but were not limited to, 

catastrophic fatigue failure resulting in personal injury. Defendant Great Neck, among other 

negligent acts, did not adequately design the product to reduce or eliminate these dangers, did not 

adequately test to determine whether design and marketing defects existed in the strut spring 

compressor, and did not adequately warn end users, and intermediary users of the product of the 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 7 

potential existence and danger of such defects. Defendant Great Neck’s negligence was a proximate 

cause of damages to Plaintiff. 

CAUSES OF ACTION – NEGLIGENCE as to O’Reilly Defendants 

23. Defendant O’Reilly Auto Parts and/or O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. (“O’Reilly”) was 

negligent, among other ways, in: 

a. Failing to properly instruct and/or warn Mr. Sparks regarding the proper use of the 

 strut spring compressor; 

b. Failing to perform inspections of the strut spring compressor, including but not 

limited to any magnetic particle inspection and/or penetrant inspection; 

c. Failing to perform an inspection of the strut spring compressor prior to renting it to 

Plaintiff; and, 

d. Other acts of negligence. 

24. O’Reilly’s actions and inactions breached the applicable standard of care in Texas 

at the time in question which forms the basis of this lawsuit. Furthermore, O’Reilly’s breach of the 

standard of care proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff. 

25. Each of the foregoing acts or omissions, singularly or in combination with others, 

constituted negligence, which proximately caused the above-referenced occurrence and Plaintiff’s 

injuries and damages. 

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR as to O’Reilly 

26. The O’Reilly Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligent acts and/or 

omissions by its employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, because the 

employee(s) who rented Mr. Sparks the strut spring compressor and/or failed to inspect the strut 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 8 

spring compressor, and/or who failed to instruct, and/or warn Mr. Sparks, were acting in the course 

and scope of their employment with O’Reilly at all relevant times. 

CAUSES OF ACTION – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION as to O’Reilly 

27. The O’Reilly Defendants are liable because they did not use ordinary care in hiring, 

supervising, training, and /or retaining its agent and/or employee(s) who rented the strut spring 

compressor to Mr. Sparks and/or who failed to inspect the strut spring compressor, and/or who 

failed to instruct and/or warn Mr. Sparks, as alleged in the respondeat superior section of this 

pleading, above, and the breach of the applicable standard of care by Defendants, as described 

above, proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff. 

CAUSATION 

28. The above-described acts and/or omissions of Defendants were singularly and 

severally the proximate cause of the occurrence in question and resulting injuries and damages 

sustained by Plaintiff. 

PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES

29. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff suffered severe bodily, economic, and 

mental injuries. Consequently, Plaintiff seeks the following damages: 

a. Medical Expenses: Plaintiff has incurred bodily injuries which were caused by the 

incident in question. Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses in the past and will 

continue to incur them in the future. 

b. Physical Pain: Plaintiff has endured physical pain in the past and will endure pain in 

the future. 

c. Mental Anguish: Plaintiff has endured mental anguish in the past and will endure 

mental anguish in the future. 

 

d. Loss of Earning Capacity: Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings in the past, and will 

continue to suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 9 

e. Disfigurement: Plaintiff has endured disfigurement in the past and will continue to 

suffer from disfigurement in the future. 

f. Impairment: Plaintiff has endured physical impairment in the past and will continue to 

suffer the impairment in the future. 

30. In all reasonable probability, Plaintiff will continue to suffer from these injuries for 

the rest of his life, and Plaintiff seeks compensation for such future damages. 

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

31. Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code from Defendant Great Neck and the O’Reilly Defendants because 

Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of Defendants at 

the time of the occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and 

magnitude of the potential harm to others, and Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the 

risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and 

welfare of others. 

JURY TRIAL

32. Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial in the above entitled and numbered cause. 

A jury fee is being tendered to the Clerk. 

PRAYER

33. Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer, and that upon final 

hearing hereof, Plaintiff receives judgment from the Defendants for: 

a. Judgment against Defendants for a sum within the jurisdictional limits of this 

Court for the damages as pled; 

b. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum amount allowed by law; 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 10 

c. Costs of suit; and 

d. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 CRAIN BROGDON ROGERS, L.L.P. 

/s/ Sarah L. Rogers 

ROBERT D. CRAIN

 State Bar No. 00790525 

 SARAH L. ROGERS

 State Bar No. 24046239 

3400 Carlisle Street, Suite 200 

 Dallas, Texas 75204 

 Phone: (214) 522-9404 

 Fax: (214) 969-5522 

 Email: rcrain@cbrlawfirm.com

 Email: srogers@cbrlawfirm.com 

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 3:22-cv-00561-C Document 1 Filed 03/09/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10