FILED 2 CITS PPS SAC 3

5/2/2023 8:31 AM
Gloria A. Martinez
Bexar County District Clerk
Accepted By: Elvira Ramirez
Bexar County - 166th District Court
2023CI08706
CAUSE NO. _____________________

CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

and as Next Friend of J.R., a Minor and §
C.R., a minor and LIBRADO §
RODRIGUEZ, Individually, §
PLAINTIFFS § ______JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
VS. §
§
SAN ANTONIO ZOOLOGICAL § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
SOCIETY AND ALAMO CITY ARBOR §
CARE, INC. §
DEFENDANTS §

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now Comes CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, Individually and as Next Friend of J.R., a minor

and C.R., a minor and LIBRADO RODRIGUEZ, Individually, hereinafter referred to by name or

as Plaintiffs, and complains of the San Antonio Zoological Society and Alamo City Arbor Care,

Inc., (hereinafter referred to by name or as Defendants) for cause of action would respectfully

show unto the Court as follows:

I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under LEVEL 3 of RULE 190 of the

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

II.
PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Crystal Rodriguez is an individual who resides in Temple, Bell County,

Texas.
 3. Plaintiff Crystal Rodriguez is the mother of J.R. and C.R., minors, who reside in

Temple, Bell County, Texas.

4. Plaintiff Librado Rodriguez is an individual who resides in Temple, Bell County,

Texas.

5. Defendant the San Antonio Zoological Society is a Texas non-profit company and

may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Tim Morrow at 3903 N. St. Mary’s

Street San Antonio, Texas 78212.

6. Defendant Alamo City Arbor Care, Inc. is a Texas for-profit corporation operating

in Bexar County, Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Jon P.

Chalker at 22302 Sierra Blanca San Antonio, Texas 78259.

III.
JURISDICTION & VENUE

7. Venue in Bexar County is proper in this cause under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because it is the county where all or a substantial part of

the events made the basis of this lawsuit occurred.

8. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims because the amount in controversy is

within the jurisdictional limits of the Court.

IV.
FACTS

9. On or about March 15, 2023, the Rodriguez family, including Librado and Crystal

Rodriguez along with their two children, C.R. and J.R., minors, were enjoying an afternoon at the

San Antonio Zoo located at 3903 N. St. Mary’s St. San Antonio, Texas in Bexar County, Texas

when suddenly and without warning to them, a large, overweight, rotted tree limb fell and struck

the Rodriguez family. As a result of this tragic incident, Plaintiffs sustained severe and permanent
injuries to their bodies, as more fully set forth below. These Plaintiffs were paying visitors of the

zoo and were on the premises as invitees of the Defendant.

10. The tree was on the zoo premises and it was in an area where its’ branches overhung

walkways and where pedestrians would be. The tree branch that broke off and struck the Rodriguez

family has been estimated to weigh between 1500 and 2000 pounds. At the location of the incident,

there was a sign stating that it was a tree that was being “preserved” indicating that the Defendant

was aware of conditions of the tree which required special care and attention.

11. The Defendant Zoological Society has been operating the zoo for decades. They

have a horticultural team that maintains the trees, including the tree involved in this incident. Based

upon public comments made by the Defendant, they also contract with others to care for the trees.

They have stated they have “internal and external” experts that inspect and maintain these trees.

12. The Defendant Alamo City Arbor Care provided arborist services to the zoo at the

request of the Defendant Zoological Society. They would provide inspection and maintenance of

the trees at the zoo and did so assisting the zoo’s internal horticultural team. As such they had a

duty to inspect and maintain these trees in a manner to make them safe and free from hazards.

13. It is apparent from the condition of this tree and the limb that broke off that it was

rotted and in a dangerous condition that had been developing for some time as shown in the below

photographs:
As can also be seen, immediately after this tragedy, the Defendant Alamo City Arbor Care

removed the tree and all evidence of the broken limb at the request of the Defendant Zoological

Society. This was done with full knowledge of the incident and the serious injuries suffered by

these Plaintiffs.

14. The Defendant Zoological Society’s obligation to maintain this tree in a safe

manner and without dangerous conditions arises either as the owner of the premises or as the

operator on behalf of the premises owner. This Defendant had a duty to maintain the premises in

a safe condition, free from hazards. This Defendant failed to do so. The Plaintiffs hereby allege

that the Defendant was aware of the dangerous condition of this tree and despite that awareness,
failed to make the condition safe or warn patrons of the zoo of this dangerous condition. These

dangers could not be known and were not known to these Plaintiffs.

15. The Defendant Alamo City Arbor Care assumed the duty to inspect and maintain

these trees by providing arborist care at the zoo as requested by the Zoological Society. As such

they needed to provide this service in a non negligent manner and follow the standard of care in

inspecting and maintaining these trees.

16. The Defendants, with subjective knowledge of the extreme risk and high

probability of serious injury, consciously disregarded this risk and continued to keep the tree in

this dangerous condition while allowing patrons of the zoo, including these Plaintiffs, to walk

under these branches. The Defendants knowingly allowed rotted, overweight, dangerous branches

to sit above walkways with the knowledge that people would be under them without taking the

steps necessary to eliminate this hazard or to warn the patrons of the hazard. The predicable and

obvious consequences of this hazard occurred when these Plaintiffs walked under the tree and the

branch broke above them, striking them and causing serious injuries.

V.
CAUSES OF ACTION
SAN ANTONIO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY

17. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate paragraphs 8-16 as if fully set forth below.
18. The incident that made the basis of this suit and the resulting injuries and damages

to Plaintiffs were proximately and directly caused by the negligent conduct and the gross

negligence of the Defendant.

19. Defendant the San Antonio Zoological Society was negligent in that they violated

the duty which they owed the Plaintiffs to exercise ordinary care in one or more of the following

respects:
 a. Operating the San Antonio Zoo knowing that trees on the premises created
unreasonably dangerous conditions and hazards when not properly
maintained and monitored for these dangerous conditions;

b. Failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate the unreasonably

dangerous condition of the old, rotted and overweight trees on the premises
or warn the patrons of the zoo, including these Plaintiffs of those dangers;

c. Failing to properly establish and enforce safety policies that would assure
that the trees and premises are managed in a safe manner to eliminate
hazards and to provide for the safety of the public and visitors of the San
Antonio Zoo;

d. Hiring and failing to supervise incompetent employees and/or contractors

to care for the premise and trees and landscaping in order to eliminate
hazards;

20. Plaintiffs would further show that the Defendant’s negligent conduct was more than

momentary thoughtlessness or inadvertence. Rather, it involved an extreme degree of risk,

considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to the Plaintiffs. Defendant had

actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved but, nevertheless, proceeded with conscious

indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of the Plaintiffs as well as others similarly situated.

21. Each of these acts and/or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any combination

constitutes negligence and was a proximate cause of the collision, injuries and damages which

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer in the future, if not for the remainder of their

natural lives.

22. The acts and/or omissions on the part of the Defendant constitute gross negligence

as that term is defined in §§ 41.001(7) and 41.001(11) CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE in that

said conduct was heedless and reckless, constituting an extreme degree of risk, considering the

probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and Defendant were aware of the risk

but, nevertheless, proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others,

including the Plaintiffs.

 23. The above acts and/or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any combination,

constitute negligence and gross negligence were the proximate cause of the occurrence in question

and the resulting injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiffs.

VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
ALAMO CITY ARBOR CARE

24. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate paragraphs 8-16 as if fully set forth below.
25. The incident that made the basis of this suit and the resulting injuries and damages

to Plaintiffs were proximately and directly caused by the negligent conduct and the gross

negligence of the Defendant.

26. Defendant the San Antonio Zoological Society was negligent in that they violated

the duty which they owed the Plaintiffs to exercise ordinary care in one or more of the following

respects:

a. Providing arborist services to the zoo for the benefit and safety of the
patrons and failed to properly inspect and maintain the trees, including
the tree involved in the incident allowing it to remain in a rotted and
dangerous condition;

b. Failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate the

unreasonably dangerous condition of the old, rotted and overweight
trees on the premises or warn the patrons of the zoo, including these
Plaintiffs of those dangers;

c. Failing to properly establish and enforce safety policies that would

assure that the trees and premises are inspected and maintained in a safe
manner to eliminate hazards and to provide for the safety of the public
and visitors of the San Antonio Zoo;

d. Failing to insure that when it provided arborist services to the zoo that
its services identified dangerous trees in need of removal or
maintenance to eliminate the hazards

27. Plaintiffs would further show that the Defendant’s negligent conduct was more than

momentary thoughtlessness or inadvertence. Rather, it involved an extreme degree of risk,

considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to the Plaintiffs. Defendant had

actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved but, nevertheless, proceeded with conscious

indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of the Plaintiffs as well as others similarly situated.

28. Each of these acts and/or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any combination

constitutes negligence and was a proximate cause of the collision, injuries and damages which

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer in the future, if not for the remainder of their

natural lives.

29. The acts and/or omissions on the part of the Defendant constitute gross negligence

as that term is defined in §§ 41.001(7) and 41.001(11) CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE in that

said conduct was heedless and reckless, constituting an extreme degree of risk, considering the

probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and Defendant were aware of the risk

but, nevertheless, proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others,

including the Plaintiffs.

30. The above acts and/or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any combination,

constitute negligence and gross negligence were the proximate cause of the occurrence in question

and the resulting injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiffs.

VI.
DAMAGES

31. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent conduct of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Crystal Rodriguez suffered severe and permanent bodily injuries to her head,

arm, shoulders, back, head, arms, leg, and other parts of her body generally. The injuries have

had a serious effect on the Plaintiff’s health and well-being. These specific injuries and their ill

effects have, in turn, caused her physical and mental condition to deteriorate generally and the

specific injuries and ill effects have and will, in reasonable probability, cause her to suffer
consequences and ill effects of this deterioration throughout her body in the future, if not for the

balance of her natural life. The Plaintiff has also suffered great physical and mental pain, suffering

and anguish and, in reasonable probability, will continue to suffer in this manner in the future, if

not for the balance of her natural life.

32. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of

this lawsuit, Plaintiff was caused to incur the following damages:

a. Pain and suffering in the past;

b. Pain and suffering in the future;
c. Mental anguish in the past;
d. Mental anguish in the future;
e. Past medical expenses;
f. Future medical expenses;
g. Physical impairment in the past;
h. Physical impairment in the future;
i. Physical disfigurement in the past;
j. Physical disfigurement in the future;
k. Loss of earnings;
l. Loss of earning capacity;
m. Pre judgment interest;
n. Post judgment interest;
o. Exemplary damages;
p. Loss of enjoyment of life in the past; and,
q. Loss of enjoyment of life in the future.

33. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent conduct of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Librado Rodriguez suffered bodily injuries to his back, shoulders and other

parts of his body generally. The injuries have had a serious effect on the Plaintiff’s health and

well-being. These specific injuries and their ill effects have, in turn, caused his physical and mental

condition to deteriorate generally and the specific injuries and ill effects have and will, in

reasonable probability, cause him to suffer consequences and ill effects of this deterioration

throughout his body in the future, if not for the balance of his natural life. The Plaintiff has also
suffered great physical and mental pain, suffering and anguish and, in reasonable probability, will

continue to suffer in this manner in the future, if not for the balance of his natural life.

34. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of

this lawsuit, Plaintiff was caused to incur the following damages:

a. Pain and suffering in the past;

b. Pain and suffering in the future;
c. Mental anguish in the past;
d. Mental anguish in the future;
e. Past medical expenses;
f. Future medical expenses;
g. Physical impairment in the past;
h. Physical impairment in the future;
i. Physical disfigurement in the past;
j. Physical disfigurement in the future;
k. Loss of earnings;
l. Loss of earning capacity;
m. Pre judgment interest;
n. Post judgment interest;
o. Exemplary damages;
p. Loss of enjoyment of life in the past; and,
q. Loss of enjoyment of life in the future.

35. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent conduct of the

Defendants, Plaintiff J.R., a minor, suffered severe and permanent bodily injuries to her wrists,

arms, skull, orbital bones, lungs, back and other parts of her body generally. Further, she suffered

a traumatic brain injury. She was hospitalized and in intensive care as a result of her injuries. She

was in a coma for several days and has had surgery. Her injuries were life threatening, are severe

and lifelong. The injuries have had a serious effect on the Plaintiff’s health and well-being. These

specific injuries and their ill effects have, in turn, caused her physical and mental condition to

deteriorate generally and the specific injuries and ill effects have and will, in reasonable

probability, cause her to suffer consequences and ill effects of this deterioration throughout her

body in the future, if not for the balance of her natural life. The Plaintiff has also suffered great
physical and mental pain, suffering and anguish and, in reasonable probability, will continue to

suffer in this manner in the future, if not for the balance of her natural life.

36. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of

this lawsuit, Plaintiff was caused to incur the following damages:

a. Pain and suffering in the past;

b. Pain and suffering in the future;
c. Mental anguish in the past;
d. Mental anguish in the future;
e. Past medical expenses;
f. Future medical expenses;
g. Physical impairment in the past;
h. Physical impairment in the future;
i. Physical disfigurement in the past;
j. Physical disfigurement in the future;
k. Loss of earnings;
l. Loss of earning capacity;
m. Pre judgment interest;
n. Post judgment interest;
o. Exemplary damages;
p. Loss of enjoyment of life in the past; and,
q. Loss of enjoyment of life in the future.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent conduct of the

Defendants, Plaintiff C.R., a minor, suffered bodily injuries to his knee, head, back and other parts

of his body generally. The injuries have had a serious effect on the Plaintiff’s health and well-

being. These specific injuries and their ill effects have, in turn, caused his physical and mental

condition to deteriorate generally and the specific injuries and ill effects have and will, in

reasonable probability, cause him to suffer consequences and ill effects of this deterioration

throughout his body in the future, if not for the balance of his natural life. The Plaintiff has also

suffered great physical and mental pain, suffering and anguish and, in reasonable probability, will

continue to suffer in this manner in the future, if not for the balance of his natural life.

38. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of
this lawsuit, Plaintiff was caused to incur the following damages:

a. Pain and suffering in the past;

b. Pain and suffering in the future;
c. Mental anguish in the past;
d. Mental anguish in the future;
e. Past medical expenses;
f. Future medical expenses;
g. Physical impairment in the past;
h. Physical impairment in the future;
i. Physical disfigurement in the past;
j. Physical disfigurement in the future;
k. Loss of earnings;
l. Loss of earning capacity;
m. Pre judgment interest;
n. Post judgment interest;
o. Exemplary damages;
p. Loss of enjoyment of life in the past; and,
q. Loss of enjoyment of life in the future.

39. As a result, the damages sought are in excess of one million dollars

($1,000,000.00).

VII.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

40. Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the previous paragraphs as

if set fully forth herein in this section. The above-referenced acts and/or omissions by Defendants

the SAN ANTONIO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY and the ALAMO CITY ARBOR CARE

constitute malice as defined in § 41.001(7) of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code and gross negligence

as the term is defined by § 41.001(11).

41. The Defendants’ acts or omissions described above, when viewed objectively from

the standpoint of Defendants at the time of the acts or omissions, involved an extreme degree of

risk, considering the probability of harm to Plaintiffs and others.

 42. Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved in the above-

described acts and omissions, but proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or

welfare of Plaintiffs and others.

43. The above acts and/or omissions were singularly and cumulatively the proximate

cause of the occurrence in question and the resulting injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

44. Therefore, because of such acts of malice and gross negligence on behalf of

Defendants the SAN ANTONIO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY and ALAMO CITY ARBOR CARE

Plaintiffs sue for exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

VIII.
INTEREST

45. Plaintiffs seek pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.

IX.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

46. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. Plaintiffs acknowledge payment this date of the

required jury fee.

X.
NOTICE OF SELF-AUTHENTICATION

47. Pursuant to RULE 193.7 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the

Defendant is hereby noticed that the production of any document in response to written discovery

authenticates the document for use against that party in any pretrial proceeding or at trial.
 APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER SETTING HEARING FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

COME NOW, CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, Individually and as Next Friend of J.R., a minor

and C.R., a minor and LIBRADO RODRIGUEZ, Individually, hereinafter referred to by name or

as Plaintiffs before this Honorable Court and files a motion for temporary injunction and in

connection therewith, presents a motion for a temporary restraining order together with their

original petition for injunction and affidavit supporting the motion presented.

I.

Plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction that unless

Defendant the San Antonio Zoological Society and Alamo City Arbor Care are immediately

deterred from taking any action that might alter, damage or destroy the evidence involved in the

incident on March 15, 2023, including, but not limited to, ALL REMENANTS OF THE TREE

INVOLVED IN THE INCIDENT, all surveillance tapes and videos, all audio recordings,

maintenance records or repair requests for the fencing at the location of the tree subject of this

incident at the San Antonio Zoo (hereinafter “Zoo”), landscaping and maintenance records of the

tree subject of this incident, all landscaping and maintenance records pertaining to all trees at the

San Antonio Zoo, all signage at the San Antonio Zoo including signs referencing the preservation

of trees, all emails, memos and other similar documents related to the landscaping and maintenance

of the trees and landscaping at the Zoo, previous incidents involving damaged, decaying or

overweight trees at the Zoo, all personnel files for all employees and/or contractors which

maintained the trees and landscaping at the Zoo, all contracts with third parties that provided

landscaping and arborist services at the Zoo, all photographs or videos of this incident, all

photographs or videos of the tree subject of this incident, all statements from any witness to the
incident, all investigations conducted regarding this incident, all policy manuals, all maintenance

procedure and policy manuals and all operations manuals for the San Antonio Zoo and the

maintenance, landscaping or preservation of trees Defendants will commit said acts before notice

of the hearing on the motion for a temporary injunction can be served and hearing had; that if the

commission of said acts are not immediately restrained, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury, to

wit: Defendants’ repair, removal, destruction, disposal, inspection or testing of the evidence

involved herein may destroy or severely alter the condition of the evidence and prevent Plaintiffs

from asserting the right to inspect or test the evidence as provided by the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure.

Good cause exists for this restraining order due to the actions of the Defendants

immediately following this incident. As the pictures included herein show, the Defendants,

immediately after this incident occurred hired a company to remove all remnants of the branch and

the tree itself. They hauled this material off after sending it through a wood grinder. This crucial

evidence has been destroyed even though the Defendant was aware of the seriousness of the

incident, that multiple people were injured (including life threatening injuries) and that they stated

publicly that they were going to do an investigation into the incident.

It is not known if samples were preserved of the tree itself but there is evidence as stated

that the Defendants has already taken steps to dispose of evidence of the incident which would

include the condition of the tree at the time of the incident. Further destruction of evidence needs

to be prevented.

II.

Plaintiffs respectfully requests the Court order that Defendant the San Antonio Zoological

Society and the Defendant Alamo City Arbor Care their agents, servants, employees or anyone
having knowledge of this order are hereby ordered to desist and refrain from the following:

Taking any action that might alter, damage or destroy all evidence regarding this incident

including but not limited to the tree involved in the incident or any remaining portions of the tree

following its removal, all surveillance tapes and videos, all audio recordings, maintenance records

or repair requests for the fencing at the location of the tree subject of this incident at the San

Antonio Zoo (hereinafter “Zoo”), landscaping and maintenance records of the tree subject of this

incident, all landscaping and maintenance records pertaining to all trees at the San Antonio Zoo,

all signage at the San Antonio Zoo including signs referencing the preservation of trees, all emails,

memos and other similar documents related to the landscaping and maintenance of the trees and

landscaping at the Zoo, previous incidents involving damaged, decaying or overweight trees at the

Zoo, all personnel files for all employees and/or contractors which maintained the trees and

landscaping at the Zoo, all contracts with third parties that provided landscaping and arborist

services at the Zoo, all photographs or videos of this incident, all photographs or videos of the tree

subject of this incident, all statements from any witness to the incident, all investigations conducted

regarding this incident, all policy manuals, all maintenance procedure and policy manuals and all

operations manuals for the San Antonio Zoo and the maintenance, landscaping or preservation of

trees Defendant will commit said acts before notice of the hearing on the motion for a temporary

injunction can be served and hearing had; that if the commission of said acts are not immediately

restrained, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury, to wit: Defendant’s repair, removal, destruction,

disposal, inspection or testing of the evidence involved herein may destroy or severely alter the

condition of the evidence and prevent Plaintiffs from asserting the right to inspect or test the

evidence as provided by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

 III.

Notice of this request for this restraining order is being served on counsel for the

Defendants and a hearing will be set with their knowledge.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that the Defendants be

cited to appear and answer, and on final trial hereafter, the Plaintiffs have judgment against

Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court,

together with all pre judgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of Court, and

for such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled by law and equity.

Respectfully Submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY

5711 University Heights, Suite 101
San Antonio, Texas 78249
Phone: (210)-656-1000
Fax: (877)-513-1359

By: _____________________
Robert P. Wilson
SBN: 21718575
[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

*service by email to this address only
 Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Robert WILSON on behalf of Robert WILSON

Bar No. 21718575
[email protected]
Envelope ID: 75212178
Filing Code Description: Petition
Filing Description:
Status as of 5/2/2023 11:30 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Karen Villarruel [email protected] 5/2/2023 9:46:57 AM SENT

Robert Wilson [email protected] 5/2/2023 9:46:57 AM SENT

Ruth Vargas [email protected] 5/2/2023 9:46:57 AM SENT