With the adults and their decisions to camp there does assumption of risk come into play? As to the children and especially the youngest, as the parents of 4 grown adults, our kids, when that young, would never have been placed in that kind of a potential disaster situation to start with.

Rattler12 said:

---

With the adults and their decisions to camp there does assumption of risk come into play? As to the children and especially the youngest, as the parents of 4 grown adults, our kids, when that young, would never have been placed in that kind of a potential disaster to start with.

---

With all due respect, your personal decision about your family does not put any liability on the parents in this case. It is all on the Camp as they promise a safe environment.

just like a ride at an amusement park that has an accident with injuries the liability is on the park as they promise safety so parents assume that their kids will be safe.

jt16 said:

---

I simply disagree with most everyone on this thread. I don't want to live in a country without our legal system. These people have every right to sue, and won't get any judgment from me if that's what they choose. And the defendants have every right to defend themselves from negligence or whatever it is they're being sued for. And your peers get to decide.

I'm heartbroken for the victims' families and the property owners and camp owners. It's not like anyone wanted this tragedy. But you guys are kind of talking about both sides of the mouth. You say it's an Act of God nobody could imagine, while then stating victims share blame because they should have known it could be dangerous to camp by a river.

---

No some libs wanted it to happen

Rattler12 said:

---

With the adults and their decisions to camp there does assumption of risk come into play? As to the children and especially the youngest, as the parents of 4 grown adults, our kids, when that young, would never have been placed in that kind of a potential disaster situation to start with.

---

Is the argument this board is trying to make that the parents' of these kids should bear the reasonability for and should have known this could happen?

It personally hurts my head (and my heart) to know this board thinks that way. I guarantee that on 7/3 100% of posters on this thread would have assumed it was 100% safe to camp on the Guadalupe on 7/4. Today we all know different. But on 7/3, those camp owners and campsite owners most likely knew different. And that's the crux of the geal.

jt16 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

With the adults and their decisions to camp there does assumption of risk come into play? As to the children and especially the youngest, as the parents of 4 grown adults, our kids, when that young, would never have been placed in that kind of a potential disaster situation to start with.

---

Is the argument this board is trying to make that the parents' of these kids should bear the reasonability for and should have known this could happen?

It personally hurts my head (and my heart) to know this board thinks that way. I guarantee that on 7/3 100% of posters on this thread would have assumed it was 100% safe to camp on the Guadalupe on 7/4. Today we all know different. But on 7/3, those camp owners and campsite owners most likely knew different. And that's the crux of the geal.

---

I know for a fact Camp Mystic knew the risks and had been repeatedly warned.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2025/08/13/family-sues-kerr-county-resort-over-death-of-odessa-woman-in-texas-hill-country-floods/

The family of Jayda Floyd has filed a lawsuit against the RV resort where she and her fianc were staying, claiming the park should have had more emergency preparedness, evacuations, etc.

I just don't know what to think about this. I don't know anything about civil engineering or flood plains or anything of the sort, but it really seems like this was a freak natural disaster that would have been impossible to prepare for.

Just my two cents.

---

This is the problem with the legal profession and our laws now ...... there is simply no such thing to these ambulance chasers as a natural disaster anymore. It's always someone's fault to extract money from.

fullback44 said:

---

I think there will be many lawsuits unfortunately, people want to blame someone…. That was a 500 year flood.. if that's not an "act of god"…. Then what is ?

---

It was actually a 50 year flood deal. And Camp Mystic knew that.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

Anti-taxxer said:

---

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2025/08/13/family-sues-kerr-county-resort-over-death-of-odessa-woman-in-texas-hill-country-floods/

The family of Jayda Floyd has filed a lawsuit against the RV resort where she and her fianc were staying, claiming the park should have had more emergency preparedness, evacuations, etc.

I just don't know what to think about this. I don't know anything about civil engineering or flood plains or anything of the sort, but it really seems like this was a freak natural disaster that would have been impossible to prepare for.

Just my two cents.

---

This is the problem with the legal profession and our laws now ...... there is simply no such thing to these ambulance chasers as a natural disaster anymore. It's always someone's fault to extract money from.

---

With all due respect, you are way off base here.

jt16 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I asking the question, I'm not making a statement.

But I will say, I've avoided cruises and/or going to the Caribbean islands during certain times of the year, because it's well known and expected that there are hurricanes and tropical storms.

If I saw one in the forecast, would I have borne any responsibility for going anyway?

---

If you're trip was diverted or cancelled then that's an inconvenience that in my opinion a reasonable person should know exists. If the cruise ship sailed through the hurricane and people got hurt, should a reasonable person expect that might happen also? I personally wouldn't think so.

You're arguing that someone that spent one weekend out of their lives in the Hill Country has the same duty to assess a risk as a business whose entire livelihood depends on the river. I personally expect that business to know more about risk and mitigation then someone spending one weekend. But that's why courts exist. And then 12 people will decide who should have reasonably known what, and if there was anything they could have done about it. Maybe the answer is no.

---

Again...not arguing...just asking questions.

The lady in question was from Texas. And she came to them...very different than a cruise going to the danger. The RV park didn't take her into the danger.

Maybe they were negligent, I don't know. But if you travel to an area known to have flash floods, and it had the granddaddy of them all, I'm not sure the park is to blame...or should shoulder All the blame. Maybe so though.

(Speaking about the RV park..not camp mystic)

AgGrad99 said:

---

jt16 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I asking the question, I'm not making a statement.

But I will say, I've avoided cruises and/or going to the Caribbean islands during certain times of the year, because it's well known and expected that there are hurricanes and tropical storms.

If I saw one in the forecast, would I have borne any responsibility for going anyway?

---

If you're trip was diverted or cancelled then that's an inconvenience that in my opinion a reasonable person should know exists. If the cruise ship sailed through the hurricane and people got hurt, should a reasonable person expect that might happen also? I personally wouldn't think so.

You're arguing that someone that spent one weekend out of their lives in the Hill Country has the same duty to assess a risk as a business whose entire livelihood depends on the river. I personally expect that business to know more about risk and mitigation then someone spending one weekend. But that's why courts exist. And then 12 people will decide who should have reasonably known what, and if there was anything they could have done about it. Maybe the answer is no.

---

Again...not arguing...just asking questions.

The lady in question was from Texas. And she came to them...very different than a cruise going to the danger. The RV park didn't take her into the danger.

Maybe they were negligent, I don't know. But if you travel to an area known to have flash floods, and it had the granddaddy of them all, I'm not sure the park is to blame...or should shoulder All the blame. Maybe so though.

(Speaking about the RV park..not camp mystic)

---

I agree with you for the most part, But when you are a camp for young girls who has been warned repeatedly about flooding (and ignored it) that is terrible. When you accept someone's 8 y/o daughter and promise their safety and do not disclose the danger, you are willfully negligent.

dermdoc said:

---

jt16 said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

With the adults and their decisions to camp there does assumption of risk come into play? As to the children and especially the youngest, as the parents of 4 grown adults, our kids, when that young, would never have been placed in that kind of a potential disaster situation to start with.

---

Is the argument this board is trying to make that the parents' of these kids should bear the reasonability for and should have known this could happen?

It personally hurts my head (and my heart) to know this board thinks that way. I guarantee that on 7/3 100% of posters on this thread would have assumed it was 100% safe to camp on the Guadalupe on 7/4. Today we all know different. But on 7/3, those camp owners and campsite owners most likely knew different. And that's the crux of the geal.

---

I know for a fact Camp Mystic knew the risks and had been repeatedly warned.

---

And this is precisely the legal (and arguably moral) issue. What was reasonably foreseeable by the entity that owned the property and the camp? Knowing Derm's reputation for being forthright, I would say assuming Camp Mystic was properly insured, their liability carrier is likely to be extremely nervous about what it is going to have to payout to the families of those precious souls who perished.

And based on the information affirmed by Derm, I think they would be smart to settle these cases before they ever get in front of a Kerr County judge and jury.

I hear you....Again...Im just speaking about the RV park from the OP, where adults chose to stay. Not Camp Mystic that was explicitly in charge of the lives of minors.

Yeah, I don't see how the RV park can be responsible. You chose to camp there, by a river, and as an adult, you have access to the flash flood warnings to make a judgment along with an ability to get yourself to higher ground. The girls are a very different situation - the camp owners/operators have assumed most of the responsibility I outlined above as far as understanding the risk, monitoring warnings, and executing an effective evacuation plan on behalf of the girls. When you took those minors into your care, you took that responsibility

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yeah, I don't see how the RV park can be responsible. You chose to camp there, by a river, and as an adult, you have access to the flash flood warnings to make a judgment along with an ability to get yourself to higher ground. The girls are a very different situation - the camp owners/operators have assumed most of the responsibility I outlined above as far as understanding the risk, monitoring warnings, and executing an effective evacuation plan on behalf of the girls. When you took those minors into your care, you took that responsibility

---

The standard or duty of care will be the key question. Did the proprietors of the RV camps have a duty to warn their patrons? I think that's very much up for legal and moral debate, but it's a mistake to assume that just because the patrons were adults that no duty was owed. I can just about guarantee you that's not the case.

What if you were not from the area and had never camped there? You might have no reason to know the risk of flash floods. For that reason alone the proprietor would have a duty to offer some sort of information about the risks of flash floods.

If you do a little digging on the defendants named in that suit, you find that this wasn't just a mom-and-pop operation ... those are some deep pockets that owned the land and built and operated that RV park. They are a national company with locations around the country that specialize in "glamping."

Big companies = lots of money = lawsuit.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yeah, I don't see how the RV park can be responsible. You chose to camp there, by a river, and as an adult, you have access to the flash flood warnings to make a judgment along with an ability to get yourself to higher ground. The girls are a very different situation - the camp owners/operators have assumed most of the responsibility I outlined above as far as understanding the risk, monitoring warnings, and executing an effective evacuation plan on behalf of the girls. When you took those minors into your care, you took that responsibility

---

The standard or duty of care will be the key question. Did the proprietors of the RV camps have a duty to warn their patrons? I think that's very much up for legal and moral debate, but it's a mistake to assume that just because the patrons were adults that no duty was owed. I can just about guarantee you that's not the case.

What if you were not from the area and had never camped there? You might have no reason to know the risk of flash floods. For that reason alone the proprietor would have a duty to offer some sort of information about the risks of flash floods.

---

what you are describing sounds more in premises liability and not negligence.

in that case, the duty of the landowner is to exercise reasonable care to make the premises safe or provide adequate warning of the danger

Queso1 said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Somebody wanted to sue. The law still exists. Lawyers are just practicing their profession and recover whatever is just compensation for their client.

I'm an attorney and I'd like to think that I've helped out a lot of people. I certainly can't say I do it for the money. But, I employ members of my community and I offer counsel and advice to clients. My clients are happy to use my services. I don't solicit clients. I'd say most attorneys are like me. What makes us a blight?

---

That you exist.

Sorry, not sorry.

Some things are just a necessary evil because of how society has evolved, and lawyers are in that group. Also, 99% of all politicians are lawyers and your kind has successfully F'd up way more than it has ever fixed because common sense and practical nature is not allowed in the profession.

Every profession has its downsides. The legal system just has a lot more downsides than upsides, unless you are in the legal system that is.

Brother Shamus said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Until you need em.

---

The only good lawyer is the one that's working for you. And they're still not worth what they charge.

Quote:

---

The standard or duty of care will be the key question. Did the proprietors of the RV camps have a duty to warn their patrons? I think that's very much up for legal and moral debate, but it's a mistake to assume that just because the patrons were adults that no duty was owed. I can just about guarantee you that's not the case.

---

Business invitees are owed a duty of reasonable care. Why you see the signs warning of wet floors when it is raining and you are going into a grocery store. The original and most common locale for slip and fall cases.

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

1. By the very nature of your statement that these floods do happen in Central Texas, the argument would be that each and every adult knew that by going into Central Texas they assumed a level of risk due to a known danger.

Beyond that, it is common sense that waterways flood when it rains. It isn't like we haven't had thousands of years of human historical documentation to hammer this point home. You go camp by a river and there is always some level of chance that a flood will occur. You have a responsibility to be prepared for such an event.

2. Flash floods, by the very definition of the term, are actually unexpected. Thats why they are called "flash" floods and not "predicted" or "scheduled" floods.

3. Warnings were sent out, very well documented, hours prior to the floods that there was a good chance that flooding may happen.

And if the lawsuits are there for the greater good.....why to plaintiffs seek large financial payouts? They aren't there for the greater good, they are there because somebody wants to blame somebody or something else and also use it as a way to financially benefit from it. The greater good is wholly a secondary aspect of lawsuits.

jt16 said:

---

Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected.

---

If / given all that is true, then they would have nobody to blame but themselves or the randomness of the Act of God, the RV facility would have no fault and the "victims" of their family certainly would not be expected to get $$ compensation and relief from a lawsuit settlement or judgment.

This is like saying a kid who can't swim drowns in a pool and the parents sue the pool facility…

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

I think there will be many lawsuits unfortunately, people want to blame someone…. That was a 500 year flood.. if that's not an "act of god"…. Then what is ?

---

500 year flood or not, anyone living on a river, or in this case operating a campground, in Texas and especially in the hill country knows there is a risk of flash flooding. Their lawsuit probably states the campground did not properly mitigate that risk by having an evacuation plan or properly executing it if they did. I haven't read it yet, but that's what I some of would say. You can't predict the particulars of the actual event, but that doesn't mean you can't adequately prepare for the eventuality.

---

This. It's all about what was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances and what measures the owners of the campground/rv park//summer camp took to protect their customers. If those steps were what a reasonable owner would have done under the same or similar circumstances then there should not be any civil liability. On the other hand, if there were things a reasonable owner would have done, then there could be a breach of duty and the damages are clear.

---

500 year flood = reasonably foreseeable? I remember the Guadalupe river floods of 1998. Horrific flooding. Won't ever happen again in our lifetime.

In 2002, 4 whole years later, the flooding was so bad Canyon Lake went over the spillway. If all the "authorities" are telling you this is virtually impossible, how much liability rests with the person who trusts them?

---

That place is right on the river. It wouldn't take a 500 year flood to wash it away. Again, you don't need to be able to predict an actual event, but you do need to be prepared. It's like requiring car insurance. You don't know if or when you'll have an accident, but you have to cover yourself for liability. Campground owner doesn't know if or when a flood will happen, but they need to be prepared just in case.

---

And how do you "reasonably" prepare for a flood that saw a 32 foot rise in the river level in literally minutes?

Sometimes....just sometimes....bad things happen and it isn't anybody's fault. I know this is a foreign concept in today's world, but it doesn't make it any less true.

It rained a crap ton in a short amount of time over a small area in a geographical location that has hills and canyons. Gravity didn't stop working, so all of that water did what physics says its going to do - find the lowest point, which is naturally the area that water flows year round in. Geography, being what it is in an area that people are attracted to because of said geography, produced a flash flood that, unfortunately, was deadly and devastating.

It sucks and was tragic as hell, no doubt. But that doesn't change the facts that it was a flash flood that was among the worst we've ever seen in that area, which makes it an exceedingly rare event to begin with and one that no reasonable person could expect to happen at any given moment, much less prepare for and have an evacuation plan or whatever in place that could be implemented with no loss of life expected.

schmellba99 said:

---

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

1. By the very nature of your statement that these floods do happen in Central Texas, the argument would be that each and every adult knew that by going into Central Texas they assumed a level of risk due to a known danger.

Beyond that, it is common sense that waterways flood when it rains. It isn't like we haven't had thousands of years of human historical documentation to hammer this point home. You go camp by a river and there is always some level of chance that a flood will occur. You have a responsibility to be prepared for such an event.

2. Flash floods, by the very definition of the term, are actually unexpected. Thats why they are called "flash" floods and not "predicted" or "scheduled" floods.

3. Warnings were sent out, very well documented, hours prior to the floods that there was a good chance that flooding may happen.

And if the lawsuits are there for the greater good.....why to plaintiffs seek large financial payouts? They aren't there for the greater good, they are there because somebody wants to blame somebody or something else and also use it as a way to financially benefit from it. The greater good is wholly a secondary aspect of lawsuits.

---

You and I disagree, and that's fine.

1. Floods occur. But there are things businesses can do to mitigate the risk from one. Maybe that's the case here, or maybe not. We'll eventually find out. You've already decided with no information. I support someone's right to a lawsuit to find out.

2. They are flash floods because it happens quickly. Flash floods aren't called that because they are unexpected. Flash floods are often forecasted, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

3. Warnings by who? The weather service? Seems to me the camp site and camps had plenty of coverage to ask guests to evacuate then.

4. If you sued for $1, how would that change anything? If a business could be negligent and not risk anything meaningful, then that would encourage negligent behavior for profit with very little financial downside.

Look, I get it's easy to crap all over lawyers and the legal system. And I agree that there's a lot wrong or distasteful about our legal system. But I just don't think this, or any future lawsuits are an example.

Gunny456 said:

---

The 500 year thing is pure speculation imho. That would have been in 1525. Those river canyons and all those fertile fields a good ways from the river were formed by that river over the centuries. No way of knowing accurately how many times since creation the river has done that. But I tend to believe it is a given it had done it before……and could do it again next week.
I personally feel the "100 year, 200 year, 500 year flood plane" monikers, can give people a false sense of security of where it is safe along rivers.

---

500 year doesn't mean actual 500 year, just like 100 year doesn't mean it happens once every hundred years.

These are expressions of a percent chance that it happens in any given year.

100 year flood = 1% chance of occurrence in any given year.
500 year flood = .5% chance of occurrence in any given year.
1000 year flood = .1% chance of occurrence in any given year.

This was a weather event that had a probability of one half of one percent of happening. Unfortunately the odds didn't fall in favor this time and that .5% probability hit.

DDub74 said:

---

If you live in California near fault lines and an earthquake happens, will you sue someone because of the damage/death from that? Its an Act of God like the flooding.

What about living in the mountains and a rock slide happens? Forest fires? Tornadoes? Hurricanes? All similar events that can cause damage in no time, so who do you sue then?

---

Depends, the preceding few retail establishments and the car you drives manufacturer or your home builder, did they clearly provide a plan for my safety?

Absolutely correct. I can't believe people can't see the difference.

jt16 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

1. By the very nature of your statement that these floods do happen in Central Texas, the argument would be that each and every adult knew that by going into Central Texas they assumed a level of risk due to a known danger.

Beyond that, it is common sense that waterways flood when it rains. It isn't like we haven't had thousands of years of human historical documentation to hammer this point home. You go camp by a river and there is always some level of chance that a flood will occur. You have a responsibility to be prepared for such an event.

2. Flash floods, by the very definition of the term, are actually unexpected. Thats why they are called "flash" floods and not "predicted" or "scheduled" floods.

3. Warnings were sent out, very well documented, hours prior to the floods that there was a good chance that flooding may happen.

And if the lawsuits are there for the greater good.....why to plaintiffs seek large financial payouts? They aren't there for the greater good, they are there because somebody wants to blame somebody or something else and also use it as a way to financially benefit from it. The greater good is wholly a secondary aspect of lawsuits.

---

You and I disagree, and that's fine.

1. Floods occur. But there are things businesses can do to mitigate the risk from one. Maybe that's the case here, or maybe not. We'll eventually find out. You've already decided with no information. I support someone's right to a lawsuit to find out.

2. They are flash floods because it happens quickly. Flash floods aren't called that because they are unexpected. Flash floods are often forecasted, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

3. Warnings by who? The weather service? Seems to me the camp site and camps had plenty of coverage to ask guests to evacuate then.

4. If you sued for $1, how would that change anything? If a business could be negligent and not risk anything meaningful, then that would encourage negligent behavior for profit with very little financial downside.

Look, I get it's easy to crap all over lawyers and the legal system. And I agree that there's a lot wrong or distasteful about our legal system. But I just don't think this, or any future lawsuits are an example.

---

And what do you expect a business to do every time there is a potential for weather? Because if that is the standard in which you are trying to establish, there are no longer businesses because there is always - ALWAYS - a chance that weather changes. That means that the businesses would need to prepare their guests to leave every single day at any given point in time, which pretty much defeats the purpose of the business existing to begin with.

And flash floods, BY DEFINITION, are not expected. It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to accurately predict where and when a flash flood will happen - because they are flash floods. Conditions for flooding is often forecasted, but there is nothing that can forecast the actual flood, much less the severity of said flood. These aren't hurricanes that develop over time and can be studied. No different than storms that produce tornadoes - the storms are predicted and conditions that may or may not produce tornadoes are predicted, but the actual tornado, the strength of the tornado and the path of the tornado cannot be predicted.

In fact, the definition of a flash flood is "a sudden local flood". Sudden.

And yes, the weather service gave multiple warnings - those warnings were generally not heeded by most people in the area. Again - you accept, whether explicitly in writing or implicitly simply because it's known and has been known for 500,000 years, that being next to a river comes with inherent danger of flooding at times.

If the lawsuits are for the greater good, then the lawsuits would be against the local and state governments to create or change regulations and emergency procedures, etc. Suing an RV park isn't doing something for the greater good, it is for immediate financial satisfaction in some effort to "punish" those somebody deemed responsible, they are done with the specific intent of getting the biggest payout to a small number of parties. Any "greater good" is, again, a wholly secondary aspect of the lawsuits. Because none of the lawyers that take 40% of the payouts donate it to worthy causes, and most of the plaintiffs don't either. Because it isn't for the greater good, it is for their benefit and their benefit only.

These types of lawsuits are the perfect example of why most people have a very negative view of laywers and the legal system in general - because they are looking to gain financially at the expense of the life of somebody else simply because.

schmellba99 said:

---

jt16 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

1. By the very nature of your statement that these floods do happen in Central Texas, the argument would be that each and every adult knew that by going into Central Texas they assumed a level of risk due to a known danger.

Beyond that, it is common sense that waterways flood when it rains. It isn't like we haven't had thousands of years of human historical documentation to hammer this point home. You go camp by a river and there is always some level of chance that a flood will occur. You have a responsibility to be prepared for such an event.

2. Flash floods, by the very definition of the term, are actually unexpected. Thats why they are called "flash" floods and not "predicted" or "scheduled" floods.

3. Warnings were sent out, very well documented, hours prior to the floods that there was a good chance that flooding may happen.

And if the lawsuits are there for the greater good.....why to plaintiffs seek large financial payouts? They aren't there for the greater good, they are there because somebody wants to blame somebody or something else and also use it as a way to financially benefit from it. The greater good is wholly a secondary aspect of lawsuits.

---

You and I disagree, and that's fine.

1. Floods occur. But there are things businesses can do to mitigate the risk from one. Maybe that's the case here, or maybe not. We'll eventually find out. You've already decided with no information. I support someone's right to a lawsuit to find out.

2. They are flash floods because it happens quickly. Flash floods aren't called that because they are unexpected. Flash floods are often forecasted, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

3. Warnings by who? The weather service? Seems to me the camp site and camps had plenty of coverage to ask guests to evacuate then.

4. If you sued for $1, how would that change anything? If a business could be negligent and not risk anything meaningful, then that would encourage negligent behavior for profit with very little financial downside.

Look, I get it's easy to crap all over lawyers and the legal system. And I agree that there's a lot wrong or distasteful about our legal system. But I just don't think this, or any future lawsuits are an example.

---

And what do you expect a business to do every time there is a potential for weather? Because if that is the standard in which you are trying to establish, there are no longer businesses because there is always - ALWAYS - a chance that weather changes. That means that the businesses would need to prepare their guests to leave every single day at any given point in time, which pretty much defeats the purpose of the business existing to begin with.

And flash floods, BY DEFINITION, are not expected. It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to accurately predict where and when a flash flood will happen - because they are flash floods. Conditions for flooding is often forecasted, but there is nothing that can forecast the actual flood, much less the severity of said flood. These aren't hurricanes that develop over time and can be studied. No different than storms that produce tornadoes - the storms are predicted and conditions that may or may not produce tornadoes are predicted, but the actual tornado, the strength of the tornado and the path of the tornado cannot be predicted.

In fact, the definition of a flash flood is "a sudden local flood". Sudden.

And yes, the weather service gave multiple warnings - those warnings were generally not heeded by most people in the area. Again - you accept, whether explicitly in writing or implicitly simply because it's known and has been known for 500,000 years, that being next to a river comes with inherent danger of flooding at times.

If the lawsuits are for the greater good, then the lawsuits would be against the local and state governments to create or change regulations and emergency procedures, etc. Suing an RV park isn't doing something for the greater good, it is for immediate financial satisfaction in some effort to "punish" those somebody deemed responsible, they are done with the specific intent of getting the biggest payout to a small number of parties. Any "greater good" is, again, a wholly secondary aspect of the lawsuits. Because none of the lawyers that take 40% of the payouts donate it to worthy causes, and most of the plaintiffs don't either. Because it isn't for the greater good, it is for their benefit and their benefit only.

These types of lawsuits are the perfect example of why most people have a very negative view of laywers and the legal system in general - because they are looking to gain financially at the expense of the life of somebody else simply because.

---

Are you talking about the RV parks or Camp Mystic?

To me, they are entirely different situations as far as liability.

dermdoc said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

With the adults and their decisions to camp there does assumption of risk come into play? As to the children and especially the youngest, as the parents of 4 grown adults, our kids, when that young, would never have been placed in that kind of a potential disaster to start with.

---

With all due respect, your personal decision about your family does not put any liability on the parents in this case. It is all on the Camp as they promise a safe environment.

just like a ride at an amusement park that has an accident with injuries the liability is on the park as they promise safety so parents assume that their kids will be safe.

---

Nobody can actually promise 100% safety though, and I'm betting the fine print of the contract at the camps says things about Acts of God.

An amusement park ride is not even comparable.

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

Quote:

---

Nobody can actually promise 100% safety though,

---

the law does not require this.

Quote:

---

and I'm betting the fine print of the contract at the camps says things about Acts of God.

---

wholly irrelevant. if you are negligent (and I haven't seen anything to shows this RV park was), claiming an "act of God" doesn't save you.

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.

Camp Mystic tuition was about $6k for a 30 day session - 2 sessions per summer

$6k X 2 X 750 campers = $9,000,000 income per year.

Wow.

725 acres X $5k per acre (estimate, probably low) = $3,750,000 land value

Lawyers don't solve problems. They negotiate settlements based on compromises… everything leading up to that is just a show to maximize billable hours.