dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

Exactly. And that is what is frustrating. How much does a siren system cost? 10k? There were allot of people with fingers in their ears refusing to hear the truth.

---

The flood warning system that they asked for approval on was a million dollars.

txags92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you seemed to have completely missed his point.

99.99% of times people say "its not about the money" its about the money

and I don't fault the parents for going after the camp. they should.

---

Yeah, I agree here.

It just agitates me when people rail against contingency fee arrangements, like they are a bad thing or something. They are American as apple pie.

---

I am not against all contingency fee arrangements. I am against using them in the vain hope to "make right" a tragedy that came about largely as an act of God. Winning a $100+ million dollar judgement against Camp Mystic will certainly keep them from ever losing a kid to flooding again. But it will also keep thousands of kids a year from ever getting to experience Camp Mystic because the camp will no longer exist. Giving each family 1-2 million dollars and paying a lawyer $30+ million dollars isn't going to get those families their little girls back. It will just make sure that no little girl ever gets to have the experience that thousands of them have cherished throughout their lives along with the lifelong friends they made there. Is that really the best way to go about "making sure this never happens again"? I just don't think so. If you think Dick or other family members caused this by their negligence (gross or otherwise), then make part of the settlement taking away the family's oversight or ability to profit from the camp.

If it is really "not about the money" to the families, then let them put their entire award that comes from a trial or settlement towards a fund to make camp improvements aimed at making sure nobody sleeps in the area along the river and that they have ample communications to react to weather warnings in the future. Make part of the settlement that the camp sells the property to a trust that is truly independent and put that money towards future safety improvements.

I just think that a new and improved Camp Mystic with better safety warnings and plans in place is a much better legacy for those dead little girls to leave behind than shutting down the camp they all loved and making a few lawyers very rich.

---

Why didn't Camp Mystic learn their lesson when the rich family from New Braunfels lost most of their fortune when THEY didn't put safety first and a kid got decapitated because of it. New Braunfels is right down the road.

It's not about the money, but IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY!

Safety first is a culture. Not putting safety first is bad. It kills people. When you run a business where you are putting other people's lives at risk by not putting safety first and things go bad, you don't deserve to keep running that business.

Hopefully Camp Mystic survives under new ownership.

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

agdaddy04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

Exactly. And that is what is frustrating. How much does a siren system cost? 10k? There were allot of people with fingers in their ears refusing to hear the truth.

---

The flood warning system that they asked for approval on was a million dollars.

---

As I said, I am not an expert on the matter and defer to others. I do not see how taxpayers should have o pay for siren systems for these camps. There should be a law the camps have to have siren warning systems that are checked by local officials regularly. It they fall short, they are fined. In my opinion, there was way too much good ol boy, buddy-buddy stuff going on. And a problem that was not taken seriously.

LarryLayman said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

---

Shouldn't be the counties responsibility. Mystic and the other camps are private businesses.

I believe I read that Kerr County was considering adding them now.

Either way, they are going to have immunity for any lawsuit

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

he \\nbhe question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

Exactly. And that is what is frustrating. How much does a siren system cost? 10k? There were allot of people with fingers in their ears refusing to hear the truth.

---

Not to trivialize its importance vs the value of the lives of kids, but operating multiple weatherproof sirens up and down miles and miles of river frontage with limited cell service, electrical needs, communications systems, routine testing and maintenance to keep them operating, and liability insurance for the installation and maintenance vendor in case the sirens fail to work and somebody dies is probably at least 2 orders of magnitude more expensive than that just to install, and at least 1 order of magnitude more expensive to maintain annually. If you are just talking about installing them in the city of Kerrville, it might have been much cheaper, but would not have helped the camps miles upstream.

---

I am definitely not an expert in the matter. I frankly think moving forward camps anywhere near bodies of water should by law be required to have a siren warning system. I don't think Mystic was in a money crunch.

---

I agree with you completely, but I think systems of that kind are much more effective when integrated into a system for the whole river basin and not individual siren systems on each property that may be set for different kinds of settings and different levels of risk. It would be more effective to require the system for the river basin at the county or regional level and then require the camps to have a local communications system either via radios or loudspeaker systems to give directions or communicate who needs to evacuate and where they are supposed to go.

HumbleAg04 said:

---

Tort reform is needed.

The fact that capital investors are funding lawsuits and not settling in search of giant payouts is all you need to know the system is broken.

---

Uninformed opinion.

Tort reform may in fact be needed.

But, for example, the Med Mal reform in Texas probably went too far in the opposite way. $250,000 for pain and suffering is not sufficient, IMO, under our current system. It is leading to sloppy standards of care, a lot more mistakes, and no one in the medical profession cares.

The capital investors that pay for plaintiffs cases also do all kinds of commercial litigation, not just tort. Actually, tort is a tiny fraction of the cases that they fund.

My point is that the fact that there are potentially litigation funders for a lawsuit has nothing to do with the need for tort reform or not.

dermdoc said:

---

I am definitely not an expert in the matter. I frankly think moving forward camps anywhere near bodies of water should by law be required to have a siren warning system. I don't think Mystic was in a money crunch.

---

How about don't house 8 year old girls in a cabin that is in a 50 year flood plane close to a river.

dermdoc said:

---

agdaddy04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

Exactly. And that is what is frustrating. How much does a siren system cost? 10k? There were allot of people with fingers in their ears refusing to hear the truth.

---

The flood warning system that they asked for approval on was a million dollars.

---

As I said, I am not an expert on the matter and defer to others. I do not see how taxpayers should have o pay for siren systems for these camps. There should be a law the camps have to have siren warning systems that are checked by local officials regularly. It they fall short, they are fined. In my opinion, there was way too much good ol boy, buddy-buddy stuff going on. And a problem that was not taken seriously.

---

I also think that a big part of the problem is people conflating being outside of the 100 yr flood plain with safety. If the camp is within the 100 year flood plain but the floors of the cabins are outside the flood plain, it doesn't necessarily mean you are safe from flooding. Thinking that being outside of the 100 year line meant they were safe bred complacency. People confused the insurance implications of being in or out of the 100 yr flood plain with the safety implications of being in a flood prone area. People who thought they were safely outside of the 100 year flood plain used that delineation as a way to determine "safe" areas for evacuations, and that was a deadly mistake.

BusterAg said:

---

HumbleAg04 said:

---

Tort reform is needed.

The fact that capital investors are funding lawsuits and not settling in search of giant payouts is all you need to know the system is broken.

---

Uninformed opinion.

Tort reform may in fact be needed.

But, for example, the Med Mal reform in Texas probably went too far in the opposite way. $250,000 for pain and suffering is not sufficient, IMO, under our current system. It is leading to sloppy standards of care, a lot more mistakes, and no one in the medical profession cares.

The capital investors that pay for plaintiffs cases also do all kinds of commercial litigation, not just tort. Actually, tort is a tiny fraction of the cases that they fund.

---

As a doc, I agree completely. The problem was that the pendulum had shifted so far the other way it was untenable. Like most humans, trial lawyers got greedy and exploited the system. And provided campaign donations to complicit judges. They hoisted themselves on their own petard.

dermdoc said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

---

Shouldn't be the counties responsibility. Mystic and the other camps are private businesses.

---

Not pretending to be an expert but I don't think a local system would be effective. It needs more data points to be able to give an alert in time. An alert system that's not effective is more dangerous than none to me because it would give false sense of security. It's why many towns have moved away from tornado sirens.

BusterAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am definitely not an expert in the matter. I frankly think moving forward camps anywhere near bodies of water should by law be required to have a siren warning system. I don't think Mystic was in a money crunch.

---

How about don't house 8 year old girls in a cabin that is in a 50 year flood plane close to a river.

---

Can you help me out with where the 50 year accusation is coming from? My understanding was that the independent survey work Mystic had done showed that the cabins where girls perished were above the 100 year flood plain, not within the 50 year. There were other cabins lower down, and they were the first ones evacuated was my understanding.

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

agdaddy04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

Exactly. And that is what is frustrating. How much does a siren system cost? 10k? There were allot of people with fingers in their ears refusing to hear the truth.

---

The flood warning system that they asked for approval on was a million dollars.

---

As I said, I am not an expert on the matter and defer to others. I do not see how taxpayers should have o pay for siren systems for these camps. There should be a law the camps have to have siren warning systems that are checked by local officials regularly. It they fall short, they are fined. In my opinion, there was way too much good ol boy, buddy-buddy stuff going on. And a problem that was not taken seriously.

---

I also think that a big part of the problem is people conflating being outside of the 100 yr flood plain with safety. If the camp is within the 100 year flood plain but the floors of the cabins are outside the flood plain, it doesn't necessarily mean you are safe from flooding. Thinking that being outside of the 100 year line meant they were safe bred complacency. People confused the insurance implications of being in or out of the 100 yr flood plain with the safety implications of being in a flood prone area. People who thought they were safely outside of the 100 year flood plain used that delineation as a way to determine "safe" areas for evacuations, and that was a deadly mistake.

---

Again, I think it was more just putting their fingers in their ear and repeating "We will be fine because we generally always have been". These are not greedy or evil people. I have been guilty of the same behavior. And as I mentioned, it led to an employee rich close family friend stealing over a million bucks from me.

LarryLayman said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

---

Probably not. They are protected by sovereign immunity.

One thing to keep in mind, 50% of flash flood deaths are vehicle related (i.e. someone trying to drive through flood waters). Having some type of warning system sounds great, but that system could inadvertently send someone to their death if they panic and try to drive through a low water crossing because they think it's only going to get worse. As part of the system you would have to inform everyone on the river that if the alarm goes off, it's too late to drive away. They need to get to higher ground on foot, likely in the rain, and possibly at night.

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

---

Probably not. They are protected by sovereign immunity.

---

I honestly do not understand how anyone could construe that the county taxpayers should be responsible for siren systems at private businesses. There are many levels of largesse and nepotism here.

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

agdaddy04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

Exactly. And that is what is frustrating. How much does a siren system cost? 10k? There were allot of people with fingers in their ears refusing to hear the truth.

---

The flood warning system that they asked for approval on was a million dollars.

---

As I said, I am not an expert on the matter and defer to others. I do not see how taxpayers should have o pay for siren systems for these camps. There should be a law the camps have to have siren warning systems that are checked by local officials regularly. It they fall short, they are fined. In my opinion, there was way too much good ol boy, buddy-buddy stuff going on. And a problem that was not taken seriously.

---

I also think that a big part of the problem is people conflating being outside of the 100 yr flood plain with safety. If the camp is within the 100 year flood plain but the floors of the cabins are outside the flood plain, it doesn't necessarily mean you are safe from flooding. Thinking that being outside of the 100 year line meant they were safe bred complacency. People confused the insurance implications of being in or out of the 100 yr flood plain with the safety implications of being in a flood prone area. People who thought they were safely outside of the 100 year flood plain used that delineation as a way to determine "safe" areas for evacuations, and that was a deadly mistake.

---

Again, I think it was more just putting their fingers in their ear and repeating "We will be fine because we generally always have been". These are not greedy or evil people. I have been guilty of the same behavior. And as I mentioned, it led to an employee rich close family friend stealing over a million bucks from me.

---

I can totally see if Dick spent a much of money on surveyors and flood risk consultants and they came back telling him the cabins were above the 100 year flood plain where he would be resistant to people telling him that there were still risks from flooding if that is what the insurance company was using as their standard of excessive risk. It is indeed a tragic mistake and we do indeed see people all the time fall victim to the "it had never been this bad before so I thought I was safe" mentality in disasters. Operators of camps for kids though should hold themselves to a higher standard of risk avoidance than just about any other entity.

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

agdaddy04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

Exactly. And that is what is frustrating. How much does a siren system cost? 10k? There were allot of people with fingers in their ears refusing to hear the truth.

---

The flood warning system that they asked for approval on was a million dollars.

---

As I said, I am not an expert on the matter and defer to others. I do not see how taxpayers should have o pay for siren systems for these camps. There should be a law the camps have to have siren warning systems that are checked by local officials regularly. It they fall short, they are fined. In my opinion, there was way too much good ol boy, buddy-buddy stuff going on. And a problem that was not taken seriously.

---

I also think that a big part of the problem is people conflating being outside of the 100 yr flood plain with safety. If the camp is within the 100 year flood plain but the floors of the cabins are outside the flood plain, it doesn't necessarily mean you are safe from flooding. Thinking that being outside of the 100 year line meant they were safe bred complacency. People confused the insurance implications of being in or out of the 100 yr flood plain with the safety implications of being in a flood prone area. People who thought they were safely outside of the 100 year flood plain used that delineation as a way to determine "safe" areas for evacuations, and that was a deadly mistake.

---

Again, I think it was more just putting their fingers in their ear and repeating "We will be fine because we generally always have been". These are not greedy or evil people. I have been guilty of the same behavior. And as I mentioned, it led to an employee rich close family friend stealing over a million bucks from me.

---

I can totally see if Dick spent a much of money on surveyors and flood risk consultants and they came back telling him the cabins were above the 100 year flood plain where he would be resistant to people telling him that there were still risks from flooding if that is what the insurance company was using as their standard of excessive risk. It is indeed a tragic mistake and we do indeed see people all the time fall victim to the "it had never been this bad before so I thought I was safe" mentality in disasters. Operators of camps for kids though should hold themselves to a higher standard of risk avoidance than just about any other entity.

---

I am a man of few words. I think it can be summed up succinctly in that they effed up. And with all due respect, I would be shocked if Dick or anyone did that.

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

---

Probably not. They are protected by sovereign immunity.

---

I honestly do not understand how anyone could construe that the county taxpayers should be responsible for siren systems at private businesses. There are many levels of largesse here.

---

There are more than just camps for kids at risk from flooding along the river. There are residences, private businesses, public parks, public facilities, etc. that are all at risk from flooding. It is often said that we should use government to do the things that are needed by everybody but can't be easily done by individuals. Just like building a seawall at Galveston or barricading low water crossings in San Antonio, sometimes the public good is served best when the city or the county handles a widespread threat to public safety.

BusterAg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you seemed to have completely missed his point.

99.99% of times people say "its not about the money" its about the money

and I don't fault the parents for going after the camp. they should.

---

Yeah, I agree here.

It just agitates me when people rail against contingency fee arrangements, like they are a bad thing or something. They are American as apple pie.

---

I am not against all contingency fee arrangements. I am against using them in the vain hope to "make right" a tragedy that came about largely as an act of God. Winning a $100+ million dollar judgement against Camp Mystic will certainly keep them from ever losing a kid to flooding again. But it will also keep thousands of kids a year from ever getting to experience Camp Mystic because the camp will no longer exist. Giving each family 1-2 million dollars and paying a lawyer $30+ million dollars isn't going to get those families their little girls back. It will just make sure that no little girl ever gets to have the experience that thousands of them have cherished throughout their lives along with the lifelong friends they made there. Is that really the best way to go about "making sure this never happens again"? I just don't think so. If you think Dick or other family members caused this by their negligence (gross or otherwise), then make part of the settlement taking away the family's oversight or ability to profit from the camp.

If it is really "not about the money" to the families, then let them put their entire award that comes from a trial or settlement towards a fund to make camp improvements aimed at making sure nobody sleeps in the area along the river and that they have ample communications to react to weather warnings in the future. Make part of the settlement that the camp sells the property to a trust that is truly independent and put that money towards future safety improvements.

I just think that a new and improved Camp Mystic with better safety warnings and plans in place is a much better legacy for those dead little girls to leave behind than shutting down the camp they all loved and making a few lawyers very rich.

---

Why didn't Camp Mystic learn their lesson when the rich family from New Braunfels lost most of their fortune when THEY didn't put safety first and a kid got decapitated because of it. New Braunfels is right down the road.

It's not about the money, but IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY!

Safety first is a culture. Not putting safety first is bad. It kills people. When you run a business where you are putting other people's lives at risk by not putting safety first and things go bad, you don't deserve to keep running that business.

Hopefully Camp Mystic survives under new ownership.

---

And tell me, what would you have done had you been running Camp Mystic? And who says that they didn't put safety first?

And to what degree do you consider "enough" when putting people's lives in the safety net?

(Hint - it will never be "enough" because there is always a scenario where even the most carefully detailed plans and design don't work or you didn't plan for X scenario.)

That camp, like any well run business should have LLC and layers of protection. Any lawsuits will be limited and the business won't yield much of anything. That said, this event is the equivalent of building a concrete house in Marfa for strong storms and having a nuclear bomb detonated on top of it. You can't really plan for it and to think otherwise is foolish. It was an accepted risk based on reasonable guidelines. Our first reaction to all of this was "Who the f--- sends 7 year olds to camp like this?". We certainly never would have dreamt of such a decision, but it's easy to cast judgment in the clear light of day.

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

---

Probably not. They are protected by sovereign immunity.

---

I honestly do not understand how anyone could construe that the county taxpayers should be responsible for siren systems at private businesses. There are many levels of largesse and nepotism here.

---

Living in tornado alley, we have warning sirens in town, and you will see a few in areas that are borderline rural, but nobody tries to cover the entire county. Now, sirens along a river would be a little different, but I can tell you from experience that people get siren fatigue because they will be sounded in situations where nothing happens. Ultimately, it's up to individuals to make their own risk assessment, and in this case, the Camp Mystic folks got it tragically wrong.

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

agdaddy04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

Exactly. And that is what is frustrating. How much does a siren system cost? 10k? There were allot of people with fingers in their ears refusing to hear the truth.

---

The flood warning system that they asked for approval on was a million dollars.

---

As I said, I am not an expert on the matter and defer to others. I do not see how taxpayers should have o pay for siren systems for these camps. There should be a law the camps have to have siren warning systems that are checked by local officials regularly. It they fall short, they are fined. In my opinion, there was way too much good ol boy, buddy-buddy stuff going on. And a problem that was not taken seriously.

---

I also think that a big part of the problem is people conflating being outside of the 100 yr flood plain with safety. If the camp is within the 100 year flood plain but the floors of the cabins are outside the flood plain, it doesn't necessarily mean you are safe from flooding. Thinking that being outside of the 100 year line meant they were safe bred complacency. People confused the insurance implications of being in or out of the 100 yr flood plain with the safety implications of being in a flood prone area. People who thought they were safely outside of the 100 year flood plain used that delineation as a way to determine "safe" areas for evacuations, and that was a deadly mistake.

---

Again, I think it was more just putting their fingers in their ear and repeating "We will be fine because we generally always have been". These are not greedy or evil people. I have been guilty of the same behavior. And as I mentioned, it led to an employee rich close family friend stealing over a million bucks from me.

---

I can totally see if Dick spent a much of money on surveyors and flood risk consultants and they came back telling him the cabins were above the 100 year flood plain where he would be resistant to people telling him that there were still risks from flooding if that is what the insurance company was using as their standard of excessive risk. It is indeed a tragic mistake and we do indeed see people all the time fall victim to the "it had never been this bad before so I thought I was safe" mentality in disasters. Operators of camps for kids though should hold themselves to a higher standard of risk avoidance than just about any other entity.

---

I am a man of few words. I think it can be summed up succinctly in that they effed up. And with all due respect, I would be shocked if Dick or anyone did that.

---

Well somebody did it, because they were granted waivers from the 100 year flood plain for several of the cabins based on private survey data showing the cabins being above the flood elevation published by FEMA. That surveying and the paperwork necessary to put it before FEMA to get the waivers was unlikely to be cheap and likely bred a sense of false security about the flood risk at those cabins.

schmellba99 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you seemed to have completely missed his point.

99.99% of times people say "its not about the money" its about the money

and I don't fault the parents for going after the camp. they should.

---

Yeah, I agree here.

It just agitates me when people rail against contingency fee arrangements, like they are a bad thing or something. They are American as apple pie.

---

I am not against all contingency fee arrangements. I am against using them in the vain hope to "make right" a tragedy that came about largely as an act of God. Winning a $100+ million dollar judgement against Camp Mystic will certainly keep them from ever losing a kid to flooding again. But it will also keep thousands of kids a year from ever getting to experience Camp Mystic because the camp will no longer exist. Giving each family 1-2 million dollars and paying a lawyer $30+ million dollars isn't going to get those families their little girls back. It will just make sure that no little girl ever gets to have the experience that thousands of them have cherished throughout their lives along with the lifelong friends they made there. Is that really the best way to go about "making sure this never happens again"? I just don't think so. If you think Dick or other family members caused this by their negligence (gross or otherwise), then make part of the settlement taking away the family's oversight or ability to profit from the camp.

If it is really "not about the money" to the families, then let them put their entire award that comes from a trial or settlement towards a fund to make camp improvements aimed at making sure nobody sleeps in the area along the river and that they have ample communications to react to weather warnings in the future. Make part of the settlement that the camp sells the property to a trust that is truly independent and put that money towards future safety improvements.

I just think that a new and improved Camp Mystic with better safety warnings and plans in place is a much better legacy for those dead little girls to leave behind than shutting down the camp they all loved and making a few lawyers very rich.

---

Why didn't Camp Mystic learn their lesson when the rich family from New Braunfels lost most of their fortune when THEY didn't put safety first and a kid got decapitated because of it. New Braunfels is right down the road.

It's not about the money, but IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY!

Safety first is a culture. Not putting safety first is bad. It kills people. When you run a business where you are putting other people's lives at risk by not putting safety first and things go bad, you don't deserve to keep running that business.

Hopefully Camp Mystic survives under new ownership.

---

And tell me, what would you have done had you been running Camp Mystic? And who says that they didn't put safety first?

And to what degree do you consider "enough" when putting people's lives in the safety net?

(Hint - it will never be "enough" because there is always a scenario where even the most carefully detailed plans and design don't work or you didn't plan for X scenario.)

---

To be perfectly honest, my nature is such that I would probably have done exactly what Dick did. That does not mean that I am not responsible or liable for that decision. As a 70 y/o still practicing doc, trust me I understand liability.

And I would understand that I am liable for these deaths and have to live with that unless I was killed like Dick.

The primary significance of the 100 year flood plain is that determines whether or not your lender will require you to obtain flood insurance. If you are above the 100 year flood plain, it doesn't mean you are safe from flooding, just that you don't have to have your property insured against flooding. If you are below it, you can still build, but your lender will require flood insurance.

I don't know if there are any regulations regarding childcare facilities being in a flood plain, but I doubt it.

dermdoc said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Mostly the RV park since that is the subject of the OP, but the camps also to some degree.

---

So if the camp had been warned repeatedly "an act of God" flood like this this could occur and they did nothing are they liable?

Or if they had been told repeatedly to move their cabins further away from the river, are they liable?

And they had also been told instead of a 500 or 100 year flood deal it had been reduced to 50?

And they were in charge of kids and not adults. And there were only 4 adults "on duty" at the time. And I have a solid account of a counselor warning the male owner 3 times as the waters were rising and was told not to move the girls from the cabin she was in, She finally moved them on her own and thankfully all lived.

I was firmly on the "Act of God" deal myself until I learned all this new info. I personally would sue just so this would never happen again.

And I predict Mystic will settle as I have been told there is written correspondence confirming the warnings. And Mystic used their clout with the local government to get around it all. And never told any parents,to my knowledge,
Either orally or in writing of the danger that they had been repeatedly warned about? For Pete's sake, these are 8 y/o little girls. It should be assumed with them not being adults, the camp is even more responsible for their safety.

---

The warnings were that storms were in the area.

Again, there is absolutely ZERO way to state "XYZ section of the river will experience a flash flood with 32 feet of water level rise in 6 minutes at exactly XYZ time". Much less make such unreasonable expectations in a sufficient amount of time to evacuate 100% of the people in the potential (but not guaranteed) danger zone.

I guess I'm just wired different than a sue happy society, because to me there are inherent risks we take every single day. Most people don't even have a clue what those risks are or that most of their routine daily activities carry orders of magnitude higher risk than a 500 year flood event that was a result of essentially long microburst rain clouds over a small area.

If your account from your source close to the situation is accurate, then it is somewhat different I would agree.

Mystic won't survive the lawsuits, lawyers will get rich, insurance costs will go up. More camps will shut down as a result of rising costs. And in 10 years people will talk about how awesome it was when you could attend summer camps in the hill country but can't anymore.

schmellba99 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Mostly the RV park since that is the subject of the OP, but the camps also to some degree.

---

So if the camp had been warned repeatedly "an act of God" flood like this this could occur and they did nothing are they liable?

Or if they had been told repeatedly to move their cabins further away from the river, are they liable?

And they had also been told instead of a 500 or 100 year flood deal it had been reduced to 50?

And they were in charge of kids and not adults. And there were only 4 adults "on duty" at the time. And I have a solid account of a counselor warning the male owner 3 times as the waters were rising and was told not to move the girls from the cabin she was in, She finally moved them on her own and thankfully all lived.

I was firmly on the "Act of God" deal myself until I learned all this new info. I personally would sue just so this would never happen again.

And I predict Mystic will settle as I have been told there is written correspondence confirming the warnings. And Mystic used their clout with the local government to get around it all. And never told any parents,to my knowledge,
Either orally or in writing of the danger that they had been repeatedly warned about? For Pete's sake, these are 8 y/o little girls. It should be assumed with them not being adults, the camp is even more responsible for their safety.

---

The warnings were that storms were in the area.

Again, there is absolutely ZERO way to state "XYZ section of the river will experience a flash flood with 32 feet of water level rise in 6 minutes at exactly XYZ time". Much less make such unreasonable expectations in a sufficient amount of time to evacuate 100% of the people in the potential (but not guaranteed) danger zone.

I guess I'm just wired different than a sue happy society, because to me there are inherent risks we take every single day. Most people don't even have a clue what those risks are or that most of their routine daily activities carry orders of magnitude higher risk than a 500 year flood event that was a result of essentially long microburst rain clouds over a small area.

If your account from your source close to the situation is accurate, then it is somewhat different I would agree.

Mystic won't survive the lawsuits, lawyers will get rich, insurance costs will go up. More camps will shut down as a result of rising costs. And in 10 years people will talk about how awesome it was when you could attend summer camps in the hill country but can't anymore.

---

I used to think like you. I have changed. And I am not saying who is right and who is wrong. Just changed.

twk said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

---

Probably not. They are protected by sovereign immunity.

---

I honestly do not understand how anyone could construe that the county taxpayers should be responsible for siren systems at private businesses. There are many levels of largesse and nepotism here.

---

Living in tornado alley, we have warning sirens in town, and you will see a few in areas that are borderline rural, but nobody tries to cover the entire county. Now, sirens along a river would be a little different, but I can tell you from experience that people get siren fatigue because they will be sounded in situations where nothing happens. Ultimately, it's up to individuals to make their own risk assessment, and in this case, the Camp Mystic folks got it tragically wrong.

---

This was one of the issues I have read and heard about the weather warnings. Partly because the sound of the warnings was the same as your Amber Alert warning buzzer, but also because we are generally bombarded by sounds every single day and at times we either tune them out or in the case of one of them coming through at 3am while you are on vacation - you roll over, turn it off and go right back to sleep.

schmellba99 said:

---

twk said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

The question I would like to see answered is why no warning sirens in the area? That area has a history of flash floods. I can't believe there has been no 100yr and 500yr floodway modeling by city, county engineers. Did someone at some time not allow warning sirens? They had to know visitors to the river are not going to be familiar with flooding patterns.

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

If that's the case they are going to spend a whole lot of money shortly.

---

Probably not. They are protected by sovereign immunity.

---

I honestly do not understand how anyone could construe that the county taxpayers should be responsible for siren systems at private businesses. There are many levels of largesse and nepotism here.

---

Living in tornado alley, we have warning sirens in town, and you will see a few in areas that are borderline rural, but nobody tries to cover the entire county. Now, sirens along a river would be a little different, but I can tell you from experience that people get siren fatigue because they will be sounded in situations where nothing happens. Ultimately, it's up to individuals to make their own risk assessment, and in this case, the Camp Mystic folks got it tragically wrong.

---

This was one of the issues I have read and heard about the weather warnings. Partly because the sound of the warnings was the same as your Amber Alert warning buzzer, but also because we are generally bombarded by sounds every single day and at times we either tune them out or in the case of one of them coming through at 3am while you are on vacation - you roll over, turn it off and go right back to sleep.

---

Totally agree.i get flash flood warnings and Amber alerts all the time and ignore them. I might not if I was in charge of a lot of 8 y/o girls. And had been warned about it repeatedly.
In my opinion, this is a totally different situation than a responsible adult making a decision to ignore.
I doubt if I would sleep much if I was responsible for all these little girls. And I think I would be much more proactive as far as safety.

I don't have access to case books or Westlaw anymore but AI does a nice job of summarizing the legal relationship between the proprietors and their customers. In this situation the children who were at these camps are effectively customers/business invitees. Same with the folks who were staying at the RV camps. There will be some circumstantial distinctions between what's described here and the specific circumstances of the camps, but this is generally a good description of how Texas law will apply to these situations:

In Texas, a business owes the highest duty of care to business invitees, who are individuals entering the property for the business's benefit (like customers in a store).

This duty requires the business to: regularly inspect the property for hazards, warn of known or foreseeable dangers, and make the premises reasonably safe.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Duty to Inspect:
Businesses must actively inspect their premises to identify potential hazards that could cause injury to invitees.

Duty to Warn:
If a dangerous condition exists, the business must warn invitees of the danger, either by actively removing the hazard or by posting clear and conspicuous warnings.

Duty to Make Safe:
The business has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to make the premises safe for invitees. This might involve repairing hazards, installing safety features, or taking other preventative measures.

Reasonable Care:
The overall standard is that the business must exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to invitees.

Quote:

---

AI does a nice job of summarizing the legal

---

Stopped reading at that. Sorry! AI is wrong all the time.



aggiehawg, BMX Bandit and twk have provided all you need on the legal standards applicable here. With a case cite from twk.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

AI does a nice job of summarizing the legal

---

Stopped reading at that. Sorry! AI is wrong all the time.


aggiehawg, BMX Bandit and twk have provided all you need on the legal standards applicable here. With a case cite from twk.

---

And I respect all three of their opinions. Unsure if they like my endorsement or not.

I don't think that the claims against Camp Mystic will be premises liability claims, which is what AI spit out for you.

dermdoc said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Mostly the RV park since that is the subject of the OP, but the camps also to some degree.

---

So if the camp had been warned repeatedly "an act of God" flood like this this could occur and they did nothing are they liable?

Or if they had been told repeatedly to move their cabins further away from the river, are they liable?

And they had also been told instead of a 500 or 100 year flood deal it had been reduced to 50?

And they were in charge of kids and not adults. And there were only 4 adults "on duty" at the time. And I have a solid account of a counselor warning the male owner 3 times as the waters were rising and was told not to move the girls from the cabin she was in, She finally moved them on her own and thankfully all lived.

I was firmly on the "Act of God" deal myself until I learned all this new info. I personally would sue just so this would never happen again.

And I predict Mystic will settle as I have been told there is written correspondence confirming the warnings. And Mystic used their clout with the local government to get around it all. And never told any parents,to my knowledge,
Either orally or in writing of the danger that they had been repeatedly warned about? For Pete's sake, these are 8 y/o little girls. It should be assumed with them not being adults, the camp is even more responsible for their safety.

---

The warnings were that storms were in the area.

Again, there is absolutely ZERO way to state "XYZ section of the river will experience a flash flood with 32 feet of water level rise in 6 minutes at exactly XYZ time". Much less make such unreasonable expectations in a sufficient amount of time to evacuate 100% of the people in the potential (but not guaranteed) danger zone.

I guess I'm just wired different than a sue happy society, because to me there are inherent risks we take every single day. Most people don't even have a clue what those risks are or that most of their routine daily activities carry orders of magnitude higher risk than a 500 year flood event that was a result of essentially long microburst rain clouds over a small area.

If your account from your source close to the situation is accurate, then it is somewhat different I would agree.

Mystic won't survive the lawsuits, lawyers will get rich, insurance costs will go up. More camps will shut down as a result of rising costs. And in 10 years people will talk about how awesome it was when you could attend summer camps in the hill country but can't anymore.

---

I used to think like you. I have changed. And I am not saying who is right and who is wrong. Just changed.

---

Derm, I honestly understand where you are at and I don't disagree with it at all…this is where the however comes in…I have now been in that area 3 times to volunteer…cleaning up, cutting up trees etc., as a parent if I was dropping off my kids, specifically at Mystic, I would have a lot of questions on their evacuations plans…but if I was fine with it all, and I left my child, I would FEEL, just as liable…I have spent years on the river and been a part of floods…but what I saw was I conceivable…trees that are at least 200 years laid over like they were twigs…it is complete insanity what happened…never in all my years of being a part of floods on a river have I ever seen anything like that…not even remotely close.