dermdoc said:

---

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?

---

Just demolish the cabins that got flooded, and open it back up under a different name, with different ownership.

For example, I had a great time with my kids at Six Flags Schlitterbahn Galveston this weekend, and none of my kids, nieces or nephews got decapitated, even if the park is now owned by Six Flags, and not Schlitterbahn.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yes, just read that article. So NFP (the broader Eastland family/heirs) has the land and buildings and leases it to Camp Mystic (Dick/tweety owned) who runs the camp. Which that structure was largely born out of limiting liability. And apparently 15 years ago Stacy Eastland sued Dick because the rent Camp Mystic was paying NFP was supposed to increase in relation to the property value and Dick was just bumping it a flat $10k per year - ultimately with a difference of nearly $3mm in understated rent over the course of a decade or so.

That said, as family deaths occurred, Dick got a controlling interest in NFP, was firing/hiring the board, and some of his actions could have put the NFP vs Camp Mystic split in jeopardy from a liability perspective. The article is over 10 years old, so curious if there is anything he's done in the past 10 years that would undermine it

---

If this is true, it will make it pretty easy to pierce the corporate veil and put the real estate at risk.

Rule #1 is that transactions between unrelated entities need to be at arms length, and at market value.

One thing that seemed clear from the article is that any transactions involving the actual real estate were messy because there are splits and disagreements - whether it was selling property, buying property, or building new buildings. Have a feeling that played a role on inaction. We talk ourselves out of things that are hard

Yes, once Dick got 51% of NFP (which was > 15-20) years ago and therefore controlled both entities, I think there are quite a few things that lawyers are going to start poking holes in. And I get the sense he was not that careful about separation - that was the worry that Stacy and other family members had.

Now to be fair, Stacy Eastland lost that lawsuit to recover $3mm. The article doesn't really cover the merits as to why other than there was a massive amount of local support evident in and out of the courtroom for Dick. But there apparently was a lot of work still needing to be resolved between the family coming out of that lawsuit for how those entities operate. But the article basically ends before that seemed to be resolved (if it ever was)

All those businesses are going to be financially destroyed. My guess is they are not going to have enough insurance to pay the settlements. Land will be sold off. Businesses have no control over what the insurance companies will do. There will be no trials, just scumbag lawyers on all sides negotiating their part.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I was obviously referring to decision making adults.

---

If I am going to pay a camp thousands of dollars to watch after my kids, I expect them to keep them safe and return them alive.

What if this had been a fire due to bad wiring? Would you hire a licensed electrician to inspect the breakers of the cabin your kid is sleeping in before you allow them to go? No, there is an expectation that you have safe wiring to your cabins.

There is also an expectation that you are not letting my kids sleep in a place that is prone to flooding. A 50 year flood plane is prone to flooding, at least once every 50 years. Every 50 years is too often for a tragedy like this. There are places in the state of Texas in 50 year flood planes that get smashed with flash floods like this every year or two.

The people that were taking the risks here were the camp administrators, not the parents. If the camp administrators were taking risks with other people's kids against the advice of professionals that knew better, they should absolutely get steamrolled for doing that.

W said:

---

one question...

if these lawsuits make it all the way to court...

will they be decided by a judge or civil jury?

---

Likely jury.

Either side has a right to demand a jury trial. Would only be a bench trial by mutual agreement of all parties.

from what I've been told the camp was being run like it was the 1950's. Which is fine in certain situations, but the fact that they were not prepared for events like this just shows the magnitude of the consequences.

I have no doubts that Dick was a great man who loved children, but the decisions that him and others made not just on July 4th but years prior ended up costing him and others their lives. It's terrible that it took something this bad for them to come to light and for people to be held accountable.

Beyond questions about where these cabins were located and who knows what went into "official" designation vs real flood risk, a reliable communication method to every cabin sounds it was minimal to non-existent. That's just a mind-blowing level of irresponsibility

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Beyond questions about where these cabins were located and who knows what went into "official" designation vs real flood risk, a reliable communication method to every cabin sounds it was minimal to non-existent. That's just a mind-blowing level of irresponsibility

---

like I said the 1950's. No cell phones allowed in the cabins. As I posted earlier it is absolutely idiotic to not allow at least the counselors in the cabin to posses them in case any type of emergency arose.

2 way radios existed in the 1950s

Im Gipper said:

---

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.

---

Criminal actions would ensure even more than money that this never happens again. A change in county government would likely ensure that this never happens again.

But it is about money. It always is. When I was practicing, clients often came to me wanting to sue and claiming that "it's not about the money". When I then asked them for a retainer (I typically did not work on contingency fees), it instantly became about the money.

Would these parent still be suing if they had to front the attorney fees?

SAFETY FIRST DAMNIT!!!!

I remember doing business with a company that owned power plants. We had a series of meetings at the actual power plant.

For the first meeting, since I was a pencil pushing finance guy that had never worked at a power plant, I was required to go through a 30 minute orientation focused on safety. I had to re-park my truck so that it was backed into the space in the case of an emergency, because, when everyone does this, it leads to a much faster evacuation. We went over the different safety alarms, and what to do in the case of each alarm. I was asked to repeat what to do for each alarm so that it was clear I understood what to do. At the beginning of each meeting, we went over where the emergency exits were, and the safest route to the parking lot, and the safest route to the muster point, in case the parking lot was blocked off or dangerous.

Because of this, the power plant management had a small office in town that they often used for meetings with non-utility guys. But, since I was going to be there every week for a few months, they put me through the orientation so we could meet on-site.

All of that to say that, when dealing with other people kids, SAFETY FIRST DAMNIT!!!!

If that is not your attitude, then you should find another business, or another industry to invest in.

Given the outcome of this tragedy, I do not believe that Camp Mystic believed in safety first.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

2 way radios existed in the 1950s

---

no crap. But did those two way radios provide notifications for flood warnings, extreme weather events, etc? Or allow people to connect to emergency services (911), etc?

My point remains.

BusterAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yes, just read that article. So NFP (the broader Eastland family/heirs) has the land and buildings and leases it to Camp Mystic (Dick/tweety owned) who runs the camp. Which that structure was largely born out of limiting liability. And apparently 15 years ago Stacy Eastland sued Dick because the rent Camp Mystic was paying NFP was supposed to increase in relation to the property value and Dick was just bumping it a flat $10k per year - ultimately with a difference of nearly $3mm in understated rent over the course of a decade or so.

That said, as family deaths occurred, Dick got a controlling interest in NFP, was firing/hiring the board, and some of his actions could have put the NFP vs Camp Mystic split in jeopardy from a liability perspective. The article is over 10 years old, so curious if there is anything he's done in the past 10 years that would undermine it

---

If this is true, it will make it pretty easy to pierce the corporate veil and put the real estate at risk.

Rule #1 is that transactions between unrelated entities need to be at arms length, and at market value.

---

I suspect that any court will be looking for reasons to pierce in this situation.

KingofHazor said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

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.

---

Criminal actions would ensure even more than money that this never happens again. A change in county government would likely ensure that this never happens again.

But it is about money. It always is. When I was practicing, clients often came to me wanting to sue and claiming that "it's not about the money". When I then asked them for a retainer (I typically did not work on contingency fees), it instantly became about the money.

Would these parent still be suing if they had to front the attorney fees?

---

If the facts of the case are as bad as this thread suggests, there are plenty of sources of civil litigation financing these days. I know of a few people would would front the attorney fees for a case like what I am seeing.

Of course, not sure if the facts are what they appear to be on a message board, but, the point is there. The parents don't have to have the money to front the attorney fees if the case is bad enough, because someone else will.

AustinCountyAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

2 way radios existed in the 1950s

---

no crap. But did those two way radios provide notifications for flood warnings, extreme weather events, etc? Or allow people to connect to emergency services (911), etc?

My point remains.

---

Emergency and regular radios have forever. You don't even need each cabin to hear it directly, but you must have someone monitoring with the ability to immediately inform all of the cabins. Again, ancient radio would do this. Regular phone lines would too. None of those things you mention require cellular technology

"We didn't keep up with newfangled technology" is not an excuse here. They never had a good plan and the tech was always there.

you seemed to have completely missed his point.

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

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

I agree. The parents (the adults) are responsible for making the determination of the camp is meeting reasonable safety standards. In this case perhaps trust was misplaced due to a bias in past personal experiences. They can reasonably argue they were misled as to the risk level and safety plan for a reasonably predictable though low probability black swan event threat of a dangerous flood, but the parents do make the choice and bear some responsibility also.

Just like parents make the choice what campsite to rent at an RV park and whether to stay or go when there are flash flood watches and warnings.

I would agree if someone is going to operate a business that they should take reasonable safety measures for their customers. They aren't responsible for anything bad that could possibly happen, however. Only things that are reasonably possible and predictable.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

2 way radios existed in the 1950s

---

no crap. But did those two way radios provide notifications for flood warnings, extreme weather events, etc? Or allow people to connect to emergency services (911), etc?

My point remains.

---

Emergency and regular radios have forever. You don't even need each cabin to hear it directly, but you must have someone monitoring with the ability to immediately inform all of the cabins. Again, ancient radio would do this. Regular phone lines would too

"We didn't keep up with newfangled technology" is not an excuse here. They never had a good plan and the tech was always there.

---

thats my point.

if I am the plaintiff's attorney, I would literally do back flips if camp mystic tried to shift blame to the parents. talk about enrage a jury.

BusterAg said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

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.

---

Criminal actions would ensure even more than money that this never happens again. A change in county government would likely ensure that this never happens again.

But it is about money. It always is. When I was practicing, clients often came to me wanting to sue and claiming that "it's not about the money". When I then asked them for a retainer (I typically did not work on contingency fees), it instantly became about the money.

Would these parent still be suing if they had to front the attorney fees?

---

If the facts of the case are as bad as this thread suggests, there are plenty of sources of civil litigation financing these days. I know of a few people would would front the attorney fees for a case like what I am seeing.

Of course, not sure if the facts are what they appear to be on a message board, but, the point is there. The parents don't have to have the money to front the attorney fees if the case is bad enough, because someone else will.

---

people need to also remember that many of the parents and relatives of these girls ARE lawyers. Not sure how that plays out in the court system, if they are even allowed to represent family members in cases like these, but lawyer fees and payouts for attorneys is at the bottom of the totem pole.

I'm not saying the Canp should make that argument, but on a jury, that's how I would tend to lean.

I'm a big fan and advocate of self reliance and personal responsibility. I also detest fraud and deception however so if the case can be made there was a known risk and there was no reasonable mitigation effort, I would be willing to consider that argument. I personally think we are as a society far too quick to blame others for matters in which our own poor or poorly informed judgement is really primarily to blame, because nobody wants to admit their own failings.

If the camp implied the kids were going to be safe and there was no risk from the river and they had a plan for floods and weather events (tornado) and they did not have a reasonable plan, then they are culpable.

perhaps you should turn the "won't admit our own failings" barrel at Camp Mystic and not just the parents that sent their kids to a camp that 1000s of people thought to be safe

When you take minors into your care, it's on you. My money is going to say (1) they misled parents on the risk of flooding to their cabins (probably going to find a gaggle of evidence protesting and persuading how the risk was rated) and (2) fair chance they also misled on their emergency plans and capabilities. If you can't reliably communicate, you have no real plan.

Keep in mind you are focusing on the camp while aI am addressing the larger population of all flood victims. I have already stated twice I am much more sympathetic to the argument that the camp operators have responsibility. I'm just saying that's not going to be the case in my view for every victim that was staying near the water.

I'm at least willing to also consider that in some instances of natural disaster, they are so extreme, low probability, or unforeseeable that I might think it is unfair to give someone blame for not being omniscient.

Quote:

---

'm just saying that's not going to be the case in my view for every victim that was staying near the water.

---

no one has claimed it would be.



alluding to the parents being at fault here is bizarre.

AustinCountyAg said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Beyond questions about where these cabins were located and who knows what went into "official" designation vs real flood risk, a reliable communication method to every cabin sounds it was minimal to non-existent. That's just a mind-blowing level of irresponsibility

---

like I said the 1950's. No cell phones allowed in the cabins. As I posted earlier it is absolutely idiotic to not allow at least the counselors in the cabin to posses them in case any type of emergency arose.

---

I don't know the specifics of cell coverage at Camp Mystic, but I know from taking kids to Bear Creek Scout Reserve that cell coverage in that part of the county is very spotty. That said, there are other communication technologies that would have worked. Not everything is cell phone

Any facility like this should have an emergency plan, and responsible people are supposed to be trained for those events. What little I have seen so far is that if they had a plan it was woefully inadequate, and one article even indicated that one counselor probably saved some lives by not following directions (directions that probably originated from Dick Eastland)


All this brings back a lot of memories of Bonfire where people in authority failed to act properly, either through ignorance or willful neglect.

A few points and questions:

I believe the RV Park is part of a chain, which is why they were uncooperative in the days following the flood. They knew the entire corporation was at risk, and they weren't forthright with information.

Question: Does Texas have any damage caps for punitive or economic damages, for either Camp Mystic or the RV Park?

Camp Mystic reminds me of the Bonfire situation. Once people set their emotions aside, they will realize that unpardonable horrific decisions were made. Dermdoc seems spot on in what he is saying. One mistake a lot of critics were making was the idea that you shouldn't build in a flood zone. Being a Houstonian with a beach house, I know that's not the problem. The problem is not having a plan to get out.

Finally, because you only live once, and nobody died, I didn't join any of the Harvey lawsuits. I did lose my home for a year. But like dermdoc, I got the "privilege" of sifting through information, and to this day, the one thing that nobody has ever answered is why Lake Conroe dropped its level 3 entire feet over a period of 24 hours after the level had been controlled. But I'd rather not know that than not know where my little girl's body is located.

We are arguing past eachother. I am not blaming the camper parents in this case.

I am saying more generally that adults bear the responsibility and that all adults have a responsibility to be reasonably well informed of risks. I am arguing in the cases of those renting houses by the water to live or take a vacation, or renting camp sites, in addition to those who sent their kids to a summer camp. I'll say a THIRD time that if the camps misled the parents about safety and did not have a reasonable plan and precaution for a known or suspected risk, then I can agree there is a valid argument for culpability of the camp operators. Jeez…

I'm not familiar with the camp beyond what I've read, but I've sort of gotten the impression that Camp Mystic was the sort of camp that well-to-do folks sent their kids to. Which would mean that, 1., those parents probably don't need a big payday on a lawsuit, and 2., they probably have enough money to cover attorneys' fees.

The RV parks are different. I can see people looking for a payday, but I also think the RV park probably needed to have some sort of warning for people staying there. It could have been as simple as a sign warning about floods, including an important reminder that people not used to river life don't always know: It doesn't have to be raining here for the river to flood. And I've seen those types of signs at other places where outdoor activities occur.

If the RV park had that sign and maybe a way to download a weather app or the frequency of the local weather/emergency alert radio station and they probably would end that lawsuit pretty quickly.

BBRex said:

---

I'm not familiar with the camp beyond what I've read, but I've sort of gotten the impression that Camp Mystic was the sort of camp that well-to-do folks sent their kids to. Which would mean that, 1., those parents probably don't need a big payday on a lawsuit, and 2., they probably have enough money to cover attorneys' fees.

The RV parks are different. I can see people looking for a payday, but I also think the RV park probably needed to have some sort of warning for people staying there. It could have been as simple as a sign warning about floods, including an important reminder that people not used to river life don't always know: It doesn't have to be raining here for the river to flood. And I've seen those types of signs at other places where outdoor activities occur.

If the RV park had that sign and maybe a way to download a weather app or the frequency of the local weather/emergency alert radio station and they probably would end that lawsuit pretty quickly.

---

The RV parks don't need a warning sign. The river isn't a hidden danger--it's the feature that drew them to the park in the first place. That's why the plaintiffs lost in the 2016 case cited above.

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.

---

"This board" doesn't think that way.

Brother Shamus said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Until you need em.

---

No one would need them if it wasn't for the rest of them.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I'm not saying the Canp should make that argument, but on a jury, that's how I would tend to lean.

I'm a big fan and advocate of self reliance and personal responsibility. I also detest fraud and deception however so if the case can be made there was a known risk and there was no reasonable mitigation effort, I would be willing to consider that argument. I personally think we are as a society far too quick to blame others for matters in which our own poor or poorly informed judgement is really primarily to blame, because nobody wants to admit their own failings.

If the camp implied the kids were going to be safe and there was no risk from the river and they had a plan for floods and weather events (tornado) and they did not have a reasonable plan, then they are culpable.

---

I don't know what you mean by "implied," but, when you take children into your care, you are going to be deemed to have taken on the responsibility for taking all reasonable measures to protect them from peril.

You could operate that camp with the cabins exactly where they were, provided that you had a suitable process in place to evacuate campers to a safe area in the event of heavy rainfall. Reports that were circulating at the time suggested that the camp did, in fact, get campers out of the most vulnerable cabins, but they mistakenly believed that other cabins were not in danger, and, tragically, those were the ones where kids were lost.

Take it out of the Camp Mystic scenario, and consider that pitching a tent by the river bank can be perfectly safe and prudent thing to do 99.99% of the time, but you have to be aware of conditions and prepared to handle contingencies for that 0.01% of the time when its not, which, for a tent camper, simply means pitching your tent on higher ground that time (or not camping at all).