On July 28, 2015, twin plaintiffs Brandon Li and Bryan Li, both 6, and plaintiff Joy Thomas, 6, participated in a camp session at Kidspace Children’s Museum, in Pasadena. After a full day of activities, Brandon, Bryan and Joy were directed to their final activity at a portion of Brookside Park, which is part of the city of Pasadena and is owned, controlled, and maintained by the city. While the kids were participating in their final activity, a counselor employed by Kidspace heard a loud “crack.” In a matter of seconds, and with only enough time to yell, “Run!”, a tree failed and collapsed on the three kids and their camp counselor. The subject tree stood approximately 85 feet tall, was 8 to 10 feet wide at its base, and was 30 to 40 feet wide in coverage. As a result, Brandon, Bryan and Joy remained trapped beneath the massive tree until they were rescued by first responders and city employees. Brandon sustained to an arm and a leg, Bryan sustained minor physical , and Joy sustained to her head. The mother of Brandon and Bryan, Yvonne Yeung, acting as the twins’ guardian ad litem, sued the owner of the property, the city of Pasadena, and the company that leased the property from the city, the operator of Kidspace Children’s Museum, Kidspace: A Participatory Museum. Joy’s father, Martin Thomas, acting as his daughter’s guardian ad litem, and Joy’s mother, Jodette Thomas, acting individually, brought a separate action against the city and Kidspace. The matters were ultimately consolidated, and the company that trimmed the trees at Brookside Park in 2011, Trimming Land Co. Inc., was added as a defendant. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, the city immediately retained an expert the day after the subject incident to inspect the tree in anticipation of potential litigation. However, as soon as the city’s expert was finished with his inspection and report, the city destroyed the tree and published the expert’s results, allegedly tainting public opinion on the issue and eliminating the plaintiffs’ ability to retain their own expert to examine the subject tree. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the subject tree was poorly maintained and constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Thus, counsel asserted that Kidspace failed to maintain the leased portion of the park and that the city was liable for any dangerous condition that existed on the property it owed. Counsel further asserted that the two entities shared responsibility for the subject incident. Kidspace maintained that it did not own, inspect, or maintain the tree and that it was not responsible for its maintenance or any inspection of the tree. The city contended that the tree fell due to a root defect that resulted in the roots circling around the trunk just below the surface, as opposed to fanning out and providing a solid anchor. It also contended that it contracted with tree vendors to inspect, trim and maintain the trees in Brookside Park, including the subject tree. Thus, the city asserted that it was not on notice of any hazard with the tree, let alone a purported dangerous condition, and that it was Trimming Land’s failure to notice the unsafe condition of the tree and its root structure, and notify the city in sufficient time to take action to have prevented the tree from falling. Trimming Land asserted that it was not negligent because it only trimmed trees at Brookside Park in 2011, four years before the subject accident. It also asserted that there was no evidence that it was negligent in its services in 2011., Brandon and Joy sustained severe , while Bryan sustained lessor , but all three kids were taken by ambulance to Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center, in Los Angeles. Brandon sustained fractures to an arm and a leg when he was crushed by the tree. At LAC+USC Medical Center, he underwent internal fixation with the insertion of a rod into his leg and his arm was placed in a cast. Brandon’s arm remained in a cast for eight weeks and he was dependent on a wheelchair for months after the incident. The rod in his leg was later removed in January 2016. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Brandon continues to feel anxiety and stress over the incident, and is nervous walking near trees. Counsel also contended that one of Brandon’s legs is now longer than the other by 1.5 centimeters, which may lead to orthopedic issues as Brandon continues to grow. In addition, counsel contended that Brandon may require further surgery in the future. While Bryan was also injured, he was less injured than his twin brother. However, since the subject incident, he has struggled with nervousness and anxiety around trees, and has fixated on the incident in his school work. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Bryan and Brandon are incredibly close and do everything together. Counsel further contended that Bryan clearly looks up to his brother, often mimicking his behaviors, and that the incident was traumatizing for Bryan, not only through his own pain and experience, but through watching his brother and best friend suffer in a hospital. Joy sustained serious head trauma in the subject incident, including a fractured skull, a fractured orbit, and a cranial bleed, causing massive pressure on the left eye that placed her vision at complete risk. She subsequently underwent emergency surgery to cut her eyelid to relieve the pressure on her left eye. Several months later, Joy underwent another surgery to balance her eyelids in order to make them equal to her pupil. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that it is anticipated that Joy will require further eye surgery in the future. Counsel further contended that, in addition to her extensive physical , the subject incident and subsequent surgeries took a serious emotional toll on Joy. Joy’s mother, Jodette Thomas, witnessed a massive tree crush her 6-year-old daughter. She had arrived early to pick her daughter up from the day’s camp activities, but decided to let Joy finish out the day with her peers. As a result, Jodette has been in intermittent therapy for her emotional distress since the subject incident, struggling with her guilt over the subject incident, as well as her worry over Joy’s future and any potential problems Joy will face as she grows older. Thus, the plaintiffs sought recovery for their respective past and future medical costs, and past and future emotional and physical pain and suffering.