Family Sues For $1 Million After Tree Limb Falls at San Antonio Zoo
Family Sues For $1 Million After Tree Limb Falls at San Antonio Zoo
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. _____________________
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
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under LEVEL 3 of RULE 190 of the
II.
PARTIES
Texas.
3. Plaintiff Crystal Rodriguez is the mother of J.R. and C.R., minors, who reside in
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
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.
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
8. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims because the amount in controversy is
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
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
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
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;
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;
20. Plaintiffs would further show that the Defendant’s negligent conduct was more than
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,
constitute negligence and gross negligence were the proximate cause of the occurrence in question
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
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;
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
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,
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
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
32. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of
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
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
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:
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
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
described acts and omissions, but proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or
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
VIII.
INTEREST
IX.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
46. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. Plaintiffs acknowledge payment this date of the
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
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
Notice of this request for this restraining order is being served on counsel for the
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,
By: _____________________
Robert P. Wilson
SBN: 21718575
[email protected]
Case Contacts