AustinCountyAg said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Heartbreaking thing is - there is a hill just to the southeast of the cabins that flooded.

A flood warning fog horn, tied into the emergency alert system, could have gotten all the girls out of their cabins and up that hill within about 10 minutes. The whole emergency setup might have cost $1,000.

They could have drilled for that their first day at camp.

---

maybe something as simple as training the counselors on what to do in a flood emergency? or keeping life jackets in the cabins. or even possibly allowing the counselors who are in charge of little 8 year old girls to keep a cell phone on them in case of emergencies???

---

The easiest way for Camp Mystic (or any other camp along the river) to prevent future problems from flooding is to not have anybody sleeping in cabins down along the river when there is a flood watch/warning in effect. You don't have to completely relocate the cabins, just move the campers from those cabins to higher ground and have a sleep in up at a gym or indoor sanctuary hall on high ground for the night if there is a risk of flooding. Doesn't matter if the cabins were in the 100-year flood plain or the 500-year flood plain, those are not magical barriers that protect you if you are above them. Just don't have anybody asleep in an area that can be reached by a flood before they are aware they are surrounded.

I've read the owners were ferrying kids in a truck when it was only a few hundred feet right up the hill. Seems like it was a Charlie Foxtrot due to lack of planning.

dermdoc 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 ?

---

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

---

I didn't realize that Mystic had been warned in such ways. That's heartbreaking. And infuriating.

LOL at all the "but but it was a 500 year event. It was unpossible to prepare for." BS. Even conservative COMAL County found the $ to put self contained flood sensors/sirens on the Guadalupe. Kerr County wanted to save a few pennies. Cause them flood sensors are socialism or somesuch.

Thanks for the info.

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?

---

Come on Cheese.

You shoulda had 10 laughing emoji's as long as you went on.


Cobra39

The Marksman said:

---

The get-rich-from-tragedy lawsuit culture we live in nowadays is sickening

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

If the Lawyer is taking this case on contegency, I hope it is dismissed and they get zero for their labor.

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.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

---

Well suing the camps out of existence is one way to go about that I guess. Making it so they can never ever afford liability insurance will certainly keep them from operating, but given the impact those camps have had on countless kids over the decades, I am not sure that making a bunch of big city lawyers rich is the best way to accomplish that.

I also think that the assumption that anybody who operates one of those camps who is still alive right now is ever going to forget what happened or take foolish chances with flood risks ever again is pretty insulting to them. I think it is clear that things could have and should have been done differently. There were likely decision points in the past that in hindsight look callous and uncaring, when they may have appeared to be from the overzealous minds of risk consultants looking for a payday at the time.

I think the easiest answer is the one I posted above...make it a law, locally, state level, whatever you want...that nobody under the age of 18 at a camp like that is allowed to go to bed in a building within any delineated flood area (100 yr, 500 yr, or whatever) if there is a flood watch or warning in the area. There was all the interest in other threads about whether the buildings at Mystic were above or below the 100 year flood plain when none of that matters. It was recognized that there was a flood risk in that area, and they let a bunch of 8-10 year olds go to sleep in those cabins when flooding was forecast to be possible. Their plan should have been to put them all up on the hill with sleeping bags on the floor of another building instead of parading them through flood waters in the middle of the night led by teenagers to another building that was only a few feet higher.

ETA: I think they would also be wise to form some kind of a family council representing members of families with long tenure of kids or multiple generations who have gone to the camp, but who have no financial stake who can help make recommendations for future action and review future plans. They would be advisory only, but their voices could make a big difference if any future owner/operator tried to take an unnecessary risk in future plans.

Yesterday said:

---

Did the camp keep secrets of where the kids were staying? Were parents unaware that the sleeping quarters were near the river? Some things are no one's fault.

---

And some are. We will agree to disagree. I think discovery is not going to be kind to Mystic.

Quote:

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

---

You can't unfortunately.

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

---

Well suing the camps out of existence is one way to go about that I guess. Making it so they can never ever afford liability insurance will certainly keep them from operating, but given the impact those camps have had on countless kids over the decades, I am not sure that making a bunch of big city lawyers rich is the best way to accomplish that.

I also think that the assumption that anybody who operates one of those camps who is still alive right now is ever going to forget what happened or take foolish chances with flood risks ever again is pretty insulting to them. I think it is clear that things could have and should have been done differently. There were likely decision points in the past that in hindsight look callous and uncaring, when they may have appeared to be from the overzealous minds of risk consultants looking for a payday at the time.

I think the easiest answer is the one I posted above...make it a law, locally, state level, whatever you want...that nobody under the age of 18 at a camp like that is allowed to go to bed in a building within any delineated flood area (100 yr, 500 yr, or whatever) if there is a flood watch or warning in the area. There was all the interest in other threads about whether the buildings at Mystic were above or below the 100 year flood plain when none of that matters. It was recognized that there was a flood risk in that area, and they let a bunch of 8-10 year olds go to sleep in those cabins when flooding was forecast to be possible. Their plan should have been to put them all up on the hill with sleeping bags on the floor of another building instead of parading them through flood waters in the middle of the night led by teenagers to another building that was only a few feet higher.

ETA: I think they would also be wise to form some kind of a family council representing members of families with long tenure of kids or multiple generations who have gone to the camp, but who have no financial stake who can help make recommendations for future action and review future plans. They would be advisory only, but their voices could make a big difference if any future owner/operator tried to take an unnecessary risk in future plans.

---

Fair enough. And I am obviously emotionally involved on a personal level. I do not care about who gets money or if lawyers get rich. I want accountability and justice. And I think there was willful negligence. Obviously not with malice. Maybe I shouldn't be like that but I am. Camp Mystic skirted rules and warnings for years. And did nothing. And my 8 y/o great niece is dead I believe due their negligence.
My nephew, his wife, and Mary Grace's brother are going through hell right now. And I am pissed.

Let me put it this way. What if you drop your 8y/o daughter at Mystic and when you ask about the water you are assured your child is safe. Even though they had been warned repeatedly and I believe have difficulty getting insurance.

As a parent, is it your fault that you believe them when they lied to you?

And you are burying your 8y/o daughter a week later. How would you feel?

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

---

You can't unfortunately.

---

You punish them financially enough it will sure make camp's think twice.

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.

In theory, sure, but "justice" is not going to be done. No amount of money (probably all from insurance companies) is going to make it right. The companies usually don't care. Move on to the next one. But it's the only system that really comes close.

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.

---

What's your presidiction on when it's back open for business?

Im Gipper said:

---

In theory, sure, but "justice" is not going to be done. No amount of money (probably all from insurance companies) is going to make it right. The companies usually don't care. Move on to the next one. But it's the only system that really comes close.

---

Agree. But in my opinion, the only thing that prevents this negligence is financial punishment. You do not evidence of criminal activity. There is no other recourse to try to keep this from never happening again.

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

---

Well suing the camps out of existence is one way to go about that I guess. Making it so they can never ever afford liability insurance will certainly keep them from operating, but given the impact those camps have had on countless kids over the decades, I am not sure that making a bunch of big city lawyers rich is the best way to accomplish that.

I also think that the assumption that anybody who operates one of those camps who is still alive right now is ever going to forget what happened or take foolish chances with flood risks ever again is pretty insulting to them. I think it is clear that things could have and should have been done differently. There were likely decision points in the past that in hindsight look callous and uncaring, when they may have appeared to be from the overzealous minds of risk consultants looking for a payday at the time.

I think the easiest answer is the one I posted above...make it a law, locally, state level, whatever you want...that nobody under the age of 18 at a camp like that is allowed to go to bed in a building within any delineated flood area (100 yr, 500 yr, or whatever) if there is a flood watch or warning in the area. There was all the interest in other threads about whether the buildings at Mystic were above or below the 100 year flood plain when none of that matters. It was recognized that there was a flood risk in that area, and they let a bunch of 8-10 year olds go to sleep in those cabins when flooding was forecast to be possible. Their plan should have been to put them all up on the hill with sleeping bags on the floor of another building instead of parading them through flood waters in the middle of the night led by teenagers to another building that was only a few feet higher.

ETA: I think they would also be wise to form some kind of a family council representing members of families with long tenure of kids or multiple generations who have gone to the camp, but who have no financial stake who can help make recommendations for future action and review future plans. They would be advisory only, but their voices could make a big difference if any future owner/operator tried to take an unnecessary risk in future plans.

---

Fair enough. And I am obviously emotionally involved on a personal level. I do not care about who gets money or if lawyers get rich. I want accountability and justice. And I think there was willful negligence. Obviously not with malice. Maybe I shouldn't be like that but I am. Camp Mystic skirted rules and warnings for years. And did nothing. And my 8 y/o great niece is dead I believe due their negligence.
My nephew, his wife, and Mary Grace's brother are going through hell right now. And I am pissed.

Let me put it this way. What if you drop your 8y/o daughter at Mystic and when you ask about the water you are assured your child is safe. Even though they had been warned repeatedly and I believe have difficulty getting insurance.

As a parent, is it your fault that you believe them when they lied to you?

And you are burying your 8y/o daughter a week later. How would you feel?

---

Derm, agree with everything you said. Point of order: all negligence is willful in that the negligent actor intends the negligent act or omission. I think the term you are looking for is gross negligence. GN is knowing or willful misconduct that exhibits a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others.

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.

---

In the same location? No way?

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

---

Well suing the camps out of existence is one way to go about that I guess. Making it so they can never ever afford liability insurance will certainly keep them from operating, but given the impact those camps have had on countless kids over the decades, I am not sure that making a bunch of big city lawyers rich is the best way to accomplish that.

I also think that the assumption that anybody who operates one of those camps who is still alive right now is ever going to forget what happened or take foolish chances with flood risks ever again is pretty insulting to them. I think it is clear that things could have and should have been done differently. There were likely decision points in the past that in hindsight look callous and uncaring, when they may have appeared to be from the overzealous minds of risk consultants looking for a payday at the time.

I think the easiest answer is the one I posted above...make it a law, locally, state level, whatever you want...that nobody under the age of 18 at a camp like that is allowed to go to bed in a building within any delineated flood area (100 yr, 500 yr, or whatever) if there is a flood watch or warning in the area. There was all the interest in other threads about whether the buildings at Mystic were above or below the 100 year flood plain when none of that matters. It was recognized that there was a flood risk in that area, and they let a bunch of 8-10 year olds go to sleep in those cabins when flooding was forecast to be possible. Their plan should have been to put them all up on the hill with sleeping bags on the floor of another building instead of parading them through flood waters in the middle of the night led by teenagers to another building that was only a few feet higher.

ETA: I think they would also be wise to form some kind of a family council representing members of families with long tenure of kids or multiple generations who have gone to the camp, but who have no financial stake who can help make recommendations for future action and review future plans. They would be advisory only, but their voices could make a big difference if any future owner/operator tried to take an unnecessary risk in future plans.

---

Fair enough. And I am obviously emotionally involved on a personal level. I do not care about who gets money or if lawyers get rich. I want accountability and justice. And I think there was willful negligence. Obviously not with malice. Maybe I shouldn't be like that but I am. Camp Mystic skirted rules and warnings for years. And did nothing. And my 8 y/o great niece is dead I believe due their negligence.
My nephew, his wife, and Mary Grace's brother are going through hell right now. And I am pissed.

---

Nothing I said is intended to indicate that I don't think you have every right to feel that way. You are obviously hearing a lot more than the rest of us about what might have happened in the past out there.

There will be a lot of proposals and new rules and laws bandied about in the upcoming months and years, some which might have prevented the tragedy and some that are purely political grandstanding. I think the most effective are going to be the collective memories and survivors guilt among the people left operating camps out there and the increased future scrutiny of parents looking with caution before sending their kids back to the camps out there.

If this were RJR who spent years swearing their product was harmless while hiding research showing the opposite, while making billions of dollars, then yes, hitting them in the pocket book with a big lawsuit would be the best way to hit them in a way that would force them to change. I don't get the sense that these camp operators were multimillionaires who were intentionally and deliberately careless with the lives of the kids entrusted to them. In that case, I just don't feel like suing them mostly for the benefit of bunch of already rich lawyers is the best avenue to bring about the needed changes.

Comfort installed a flood warning system after the last devastating flood on the Guadalupe. They raised part of the $$ through the volunteer fire department.

Why didn't the City of Kerville do the same?

Yesterday said:

---

I mean you can literally sue anyone you want for anything these days. That said, if I'm on the jury you're going to have a hell of a time convincing me an RV park is at fault from an act of god.

---

they will probably sue them in Harris County or Some liberal county……. Your potential juror pool just got real plaintiff friendly.

Quote:

---

all negligence is willful in that the negligent actor intends the negligent act or omission

---

Huh?


Not paying attention and running a red light?

Forgetting to lock the gate to a pool?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

---

Well suing the camps out of existence is one way to go about that I guess. Making it so they can never ever afford liability insurance will certainly keep them from operating, but given the impact those camps have had on countless kids over the decades, I am not sure that making a bunch of big city lawyers rich is the best way to accomplish that.

I also think that the assumption that anybody who operates one of those camps who is still alive right now is ever going to forget what happened or take foolish chances with flood risks ever again is pretty insulting to them. I think it is clear that things could have and should have been done differently. There were likely decision points in the past that in hindsight look callous and uncaring, when they may have appeared to be from the overzealous minds of risk consultants looking for a payday at the time.

I think the easiest answer is the one I posted above...make it a law, locally, state level, whatever you want...that nobody under the age of 18 at a camp like that is allowed to go to bed in a building within any delineated flood area (100 yr, 500 yr, or whatever) if there is a flood watch or warning in the area. There was all the interest in other threads about whether the buildings at Mystic were above or below the 100 year flood plain when none of that matters. It was recognized that there was a flood risk in that area, and they let a bunch of 8-10 year olds go to sleep in those cabins when flooding was forecast to be possible. Their plan should have been to put them all up on the hill with sleeping bags on the floor of another building instead of parading them through flood waters in the middle of the night led by teenagers to another building that was only a few feet higher.

ETA: I think they would also be wise to form some kind of a family council representing members of families with long tenure of kids or multiple generations who have gone to the camp, but who have no financial stake who can help make recommendations for future action and review future plans. They would be advisory only, but their voices could make a big difference if any future owner/operator tried to take an unnecessary risk in future plans.

---

Fair enough. And I am obviously emotionally involved on a personal level. I do not care about who gets money or if lawyers get rich. I want accountability and justice. And I think there was willful negligence. Obviously not with malice. Maybe I shouldn't be like that but I am. Camp Mystic skirted rules and warnings for years. And did nothing. And my 8 y/o great niece is dead I believe due their negligence.
My nephew, his wife, and Mary Grace's brother are going through hell right now. And I am pissed.

Let me put it this way. What if you drop your 8y/o daughter at Mystic and when you ask about the water you are assured your child is safe. Even though they had been warned repeatedly and I believe have difficulty getting insurance.

As a parent, is it your fault that you believe them when they lied to you?

And you are burying your 8y/o daughter a week later. How would you feel?

---

Derm, agree with everything you said. Point of order: all negligence is willful in that the negligent actor intends the negligent act or omission. I think the term you are looking for is gross negligence. GN is willful misconduct that exhibits a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others.

---

Whatever. I am obviously not a lawyer. I am not shocked, but sickened by the attitude of some posters on here about liability and negligence. Especially involving 8 y/o little girls. And it seems that all they care about is that they hate lawyers getting rich. How about the Camp Mystic people? They basically lied to keep their camo going without changes. And 8 y/o girls got killed.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Comfort installed a flood warning system after the last devastating flood on the Guadalupe. They raised part of the $$ through the volunteer fire department.

Why didn't the City of Kerville do the same?

---

I believe it came up for a vote and lost.

Based on what I've read, these Camp Mystic are all going to be settled. There is no way the insurers take the risk of a trial.

Triple S said:

---

Yesterday said:

---

I mean you can literally sue anyone you want for anything these days. That said, if I'm on the jury you're going to have a hell of a time convincing me an RV park is at fault from an act of god.

---

they will probably sue them in Harris County or Some liberal county……. Your potential juror pool just got real plaintiff friendly.

---

I don't think it matters where this is filed. And I would be shocked if it went to trial. I believe Mustic would get smoke even in the most conservative places in Texas.

Im Gipper said:

---

Based on what I've read, these Camp Mystic are all going to be settled. There is no way the insurers take the risk of a trial.

---

I think this is going to go much further than insurance. We shall see.

It very well could, depend on the coverage available. I am assuming they have adequate coverage (I probably should not do that)

Problem with going beyond the insurance is that it likely means bankruptcies and tied up for years and years. Sad to see for the families.

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

---

Fair enough. How do you make sure it never happens again?

---

Well suing the camps out of existence is one way to go about that I guess. Making it so they can never ever afford liability insurance will certainly keep them from operating, but given the impact those camps have had on countless kids over the decades, I am not sure that making a bunch of big city lawyers rich is the best way to accomplish that.

I also think that the assumption that anybody who operates one of those camps who is still alive right now is ever going to forget what happened or take foolish chances with flood risks ever again is pretty insulting to them. I think it is clear that things could have and should have been done differently. There were likely decision points in the past that in hindsight look callous and uncaring, when they may have appeared to be from the overzealous minds of risk consultants looking for a payday at the time.

I think the easiest answer is the one I posted above...make it a law, locally, state level, whatever you want...that nobody under the age of 18 at a camp like that is allowed to go to bed in a building within any delineated flood area (100 yr, 500 yr, or whatever) if there is a flood watch or warning in the area. There was all the interest in other threads about whether the buildings at Mystic were above or below the 100 year flood plain when none of that matters. It was recognized that there was a flood risk in that area, and they let a bunch of 8-10 year olds go to sleep in those cabins when flooding was forecast to be possible. Their plan should have been to put them all up on the hill with sleeping bags on the floor of another building instead of parading them through flood waters in the middle of the night led by teenagers to another building that was only a few feet higher.

ETA: I think they would also be wise to form some kind of a family council representing members of families with long tenure of kids or multiple generations who have gone to the camp, but who have no financial stake who can help make recommendations for future action and review future plans. They would be advisory only, but their voices could make a big difference if any future owner/operator tried to take an unnecessary risk in future plans.

---

Fair enough. And I am obviously emotionally involved on a personal level. I do not care about who gets money or if lawyers get rich. I want accountability and justice. And I think there was willful negligence. Obviously not with malice. Maybe I shouldn't be like that but I am. Camp Mystic skirted rules and warnings for years. And did nothing. And my 8 y/o great niece is dead I believe due their negligence.
My nephew, his wife, and Mary Grace's brother are going through hell right now. And I am pissed.

---

Nothing I said is intended to indicate that I don't think you have every right to feel that way. You are obviously hearing a lot more than the rest of us about what might have happened in the past out there.

There will be a lot of proposals and new rules and laws bandied about in the upcoming months and years, some which might have prevented the tragedy and some that are purely political grandstanding. I think the most effective are going to be the collective memories and survivors guilt among the people left operating camps out there and the increased future scrutiny of parents looking with caution before sending their kids back to the camps out there.

If this were RJR who spent years swearing their product was harmless while hiding research showing the opposite, while making billions of dollars, then yes, hitting them in the pocket book with a big lawsuit would be the best way to hit them in a way that would force them to change. I don't get the sense that these camp operators were multimillionaires who were intentionally and deliberately careless with the lives of the kids entrusted to them. In that case, I just don't feel like suing them mostly for the benefit of bunch of already rich lawyers is the best avenue to bring about the needed changes.

---

Camp Mystic land is worth conservatively about 5 million. And they generate millions annually. Somebody is very wealthy.

This is not your typical church or Boy Scout camp. This is a major business player and one reason why they got away with negligence. That is some nice tax money for the county.

Im Gipper said:

---

It very well could, depend on the coverage available. I am assuming they have adequate coverage (I probably should not do that)

Problem with going beyond the insurance is that it likely means bankruptcies and tied up for years and years. Sad to see for the families.

---

The families I know do not need the money or care about. They want it to never happen again. And they are convinced they were misled by Camp Mystic regarding flood safety. And I think discovery will prove that.

Yeah, I think they will blast right through whatever policy limit there is. I anticipate bankruptcy. if these camps come back, it will be new ownership

With all due respect, I understand it's not about money. But they aren't the first people to claim that. History shows that when push comes to shove, settlements happen because the "we don't want this to happen again" isn't an award one can get after litigation.

Maybe this time will be different. For their sake, closure is far more important IMO.