Quote:
And I respect all three of their opinions. Unsure if they like my endorsement or not.
twk said:
I don't think that the claims against Camp Mystic will be premises liability claims, which is what AI spit out for you.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
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.
MelvinUdall said: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.
twk said:Quote:
And I respect all three of their opinions. Unsure if they like my endorsement or not.
I've had worse. My dad's cousin who served in Congress said that when he first ran for the office there was someone who told him, "I'll endorse you or your opponent, whichever you think will help you most."
Jugstore Cowboy said:
As an outsider who knew nothing about CM before July 4th but took a little time to read about it, it was pretty surprising to learn that the owners had drastically expanded capacity by building new dorms on low ground closer to the river after experiencing previous flood emergencies. And then put the youngest girls in those new, low-lying cabins.
That stands out to me more than anything.
This business has been owned and operated by the same family for the better part of a century; presumably they were the experts on the property and the business.
There are some historical facts that make it difficult to accept the whole "Act of God" notion as a dismissal of the owners' responsibility.
dermdoc said:MelvinUdall said: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.
I respect your opinion. And hind sight is always 20/20. I think it was a combination of an unprecedented event and disregard of warnings. I do not think there are any bad people in this whole thing. Just a lot of sorrow.
But I am not going to judge how people react to the death of an 8 y/o girl. And I do think there was negligence.
Thanks for helping at the site. I should post less and do more like you.
MelvinUdall said:dermdoc said:MelvinUdall said: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.
I respect your opinion. And hind sight is always 20/20. I think it was a combination of an unprecedented event and disregard of warnings. I do not think there are any bad people in this whole thing. Just a lot of sorrow.
But I am not going to judge how people react to the death of an 8 y/o girl. And I do think there was negligence.
Thanks for helping at the site. I should post less and do more like you.
I do agree there was some negligence…I will not deny that at all…it is a bad situation all the way around…the flooding in Ingram shows how bad it really was…Hunt, and all of the RV, homes, and kids camps completely make sense…we were there 10 days after it all and there are concrete slabs, no homes in sight…buried cars…just awful. No one is winning in any of this at all, no matter if someone wins a big lawsuit.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:twk said:
I don't think that the claims against Camp Mystic will be premises liability claims, which is what AI spit out for you.
What do you think tue legal relationship between the campers and the campground proprietors will be?
schmellba99 said:
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.
twk said:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:twk said:
I don't think that the claims against Camp Mystic will be premises liability claims, which is what AI spit out for you.
What do you think tue legal relationship between the campers and the campground proprietors will be?
I think it will be a professional liability claim, general negligence duty (the duty to act as a reasonably prudent child care facility would). Warnings and such make sense in the context of adult business invitees and premises liability. In this case, where the child has been entrusted to the care of the camp, that is the nature of the relationship, not landowner/invitee.
Sharpshooter said:
short people are a blight on society.
dermdoc said: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.
dermdoc said: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.
BrazosDog02 said:
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.
Jugstore Cowboy said:
As an outsider who knew nothing about CM before July 4th but took a little time to read about it, it was pretty surprising to learn that the owners had drastically expanded capacity by building new dorms on low ground closer to the river after experiencing previous flood emergencies. And then put the youngest girls in those new, low-lying cabins.
That stands out to me more than anything.
This business has been owned and operated by the same family for the better part of a century; presumably they were the experts on the property and the business.
There are some historical facts that make it difficult to accept the whole "Act of God" notion as a dismissal of the owners' responsibility.
94chem said:Jugstore Cowboy said:
As an outsider who knew nothing about CM before July 4th but took a little time to read about it, it was pretty surprising to learn that the owners had drastically expanded capacity by building new dorms on low ground closer to the river after experiencing previous flood emergencies. And then put the youngest girls in those new, low-lying cabins.
That stands out to me more than anything.
This business has been owned and operated by the same family for the better part of a century; presumably they were the experts on the property and the business.
There are some historical facts that make it difficult to accept the whole "Act of God" notion as a dismissal of the owners' responsibility.
Yet another piece of evidence that reminds me of the Bonfire stack falling in 1994, and nobody paid attention..
Jugstore Cowboy said:
As an outsider who knew nothing about CM before July 4th but took a little time to read about it, it was pretty surprising to learn that the owners had drastically expanded capacity by building new dorms on low ground closer to the river after experiencing previous flood emergencies. And then put the youngest girls in those new, low-lying cabins.
That stands out to me more than anything.
This business has been owned and operated by the same family for the better part of a century; presumably they were the experts on the property and the business.
There are some historical facts that make it difficult to accept the whole "Act of God" notion as a dismissal of the owners' responsibility.
Jugstore Cowboy said:
I'm willing to hear other information outside of the publicly available record, but since you created an account here to spin this tragedy, you go first with the information you have.
*you created this account on July 9th and all your posts are on this topic.
txags92 said:Jugstore Cowboy said:
I'm willing to hear other information outside of the publicly available record, but since you created an account here to spin this tragedy, you go first with the information you have.
*you created this account on July 9th and all your posts are on this topic.
Marvin_Zindler said:Burdizzo said:bthotugigem05 said:
Be prepared for a lot more, likely including some of the Camp Mystic families. Just a reality of insurance policies these days.
I will be shocked if Camp Mystic ever opens again.
I think you're going to be shocked.
Im Gipper said:
Go on…
Marvin_Zindler said:Im Gipper said:
Go on…
It is clear they are mad.
rtpAggie said:
The senate clearly pointed out how mystic owners were at fault for seeking the fema waivers.
Very much made it clear that there was fault involved.
dermdoc said:rtpAggie said:
The senate clearly pointed out how mystic owners were at fault for seeking the fema waivers.
Very much made it clear that there was fault involved.
Yes they did. And very proud of my nephew's testimony today. Mystic was negligent and complacent. The Senate investigation is very important to keep this from happening again. And it is a lot worse than just the FEMA stuff. And no I do not love lawsuits or trial lawyers.
