BMX Bandit said:

---

you seemed to have completely missed his point.

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

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

---

Yeah, I agree here.

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

dermdoc said:

---

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.

---

As it should. All of the Camp Mystic assets and the property should go to the campers and their families IMO. They gambled with children's lives and they lost.

I don't know. I have personal experience with flash floods. Cleaned up after a few now. I have taken them seriously for a long time. I consider them when near a canyon or water course, regarding any kind of camping or recreation. I at least have an idea what the weather forecast is in the area and make a mental note what my plan will be if I get the idea there is a threat.

So yes, some people do consider these things as a matter of routine and are reasonably well informed about them.

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'm not sure cell phones are even reliable out there. If each cabin did not have a way to communicate in case of emergency, that's insane.

Then we basically agree.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

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.

---

This disaster, where kids were sleeping in a cabin that was close to a river in a 50 year flood plane, was very likely both reasonably possible and predictable.

As a parent, it is unreasonable for society to expect me to examine a topographical map along with a civil engineer experienced with flooding patterns when making a decision on whether or not to allow my kid to attend a camp. Especially if, as claimed on this thread, the camp was told by such experienced engineers that what they were doing was unsafe. Not sure if that is true, but, if true, that is not OK.

Quote:

---

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.

---

As far as I know, this board has not taken that stance.

I'm going to guess they assumed the close proximity was adequate for verbal communication. That's not very centralized. I would have thought they would have a PA system installed to all the cabins at minimum, however.

Quote:

---

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

---

Unless there is a cap buster (things like murder, sexual assault, etc. that don't seem to apply ) then exemplary damages are capped at two times the amount of economic damages plus any noneconomic damages up to $750,000. So:

2 X exonomics
+
Noneconomics up to $750,000

redcrayon said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

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.

---

As it should. All of the Camp Mystic assets and the property should go to the campers and their families IMO. They gambled with children's lives and they lost.

---

If what I have read is true, this is where I am at.

twk said:

---

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.

---

"Need" probably isn't the right word. Maybe "would have been wise to have." The key point being that, sure, any river can flood, and at some point they probably all do. But that particular area of Texas is particularly bad, and I wouldn't expect visitors to necessarily know that.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I don't know. I have personal experience with flash floods. Cleaned up after a few now. I have taken them seriously for a long time. I consider them when near a canyon or water course, regarding any kind of camping or recreation. I at least have an idea what the weather forecast is in the area and make a mental note what my plan will be if I get the idea there is a threat.

So yes, some people do consider these things as a matter of routine and are reasonably well informed about them.

---

Like camp operators that own cabins near rivers? I would expect them to be pretty reasonably informed.

Are you implying that there are others in this situation who should have been more informed about those risks than the camp operators?

It might hurt someone's head but ultimately, the parents ARE responsible for the wellbeing of their children in the end. It is also, however, considered a normal social compact for people to turn over responsibility for this trust to other adults who should take that same level of care and responsibility. Given that standard, and the appearance that it would be faithfully carried out by the adults operating the camps, then yes, those adults assumed the same level of responsibility. The parents placed a reasonable trust in good faith, so they can't be blamed, but as parents, they still have the final responsibility but in this case no blame or culpability. The word responsibility has a lot of semantic interpretations here, and I am failing to come up with a more precise term to distinguish the ultimate obligation as a parent for a child with one delegated in good faith to another.

They have a very valid argument that they were misled and their trust in others was betrayed.

Did the parents have to sign a liability waiver that related to flooding? Did the camp disclose that some of the cabins were in 50 year flood planes in their liability waiver?

Because, that might have given some people pause before they sent their kids there. Also would have helped Mystic cover their butts somewhat if it was commonly discussed.

Given that I like to go on vacation where there is a decent amount of risk (guns, diving in the ocean, hiking in the wilderness, rafting in rapids, fishing many miles away from the shore at the mercy of the sea), I am pretty comfortable signing such waivers.

Not sure I would be all that thrilled to send my 8 year old daughter to a multi-week camp that was dangerous enough to require such a waiver.

Quote:

---

Did the parents have to sign a liability waiver that related to flooding?

---

Wouldnt matter if they did.

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?

---

I think we have the best legal system in the world, but.......

Lawyers write the laws they use in court. Direct conflict of interest.
The goal is to win, finding out the truth is secondary.
No penalties for frivolous lawsuits.
Lawyers do very, very little to police their own.
To name a few.

Lawyers are a necessary evil at best.

Contingency fee arrangements would be more palatable if the plaintiff lawyers had personal liability for the costs and legal fees of the other side if the plaintiffs lost.

That would also get rid of almost all of the frivolous lawsuits.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It might hurt someone's head but ultimately, the parents ARE responsible for the wellbeing of their children in the end. It is also, however, considered a normal social compact for people to turn over responsibility for this trust to other adults who should take that same level of care and responsibility. Given that standard, and the appearance that it would be faithfully carried out by the adults operating the camps, then yes, those adults assumed the same level of responsibility. The parents placed a reasonable trust in good faith, so they can't be blamed, but as parents, they still have the final responsibility but in this case no blame or culpability. The word responsibility has a lot of semantic interpretations here, and I am failing to come up with a more precise term to distinguish the ultimate obligation as a parent for a child with one delegated in good faith to another.

They have a very valid argument that they were misled and their trust in others was betrayed.

---

Is there any information available on what the camp agreement says regarding safety precautions, what parents are informed during drop-off, and what the campers are made aware of?

From reading the threads here, it seems the camps evacuation plan was inadequate, rally points maybe not in the most ideal locations, and communications woefully inadequate. Thats probably enough to make the insurance companies and or the owners/operators have financial responsibility.

On the other hand, there are other "acts of God" that can be severe and hard to plan & account for. If for instance a lightning bolt hits a tree next to a cabin at Pine Cove and causes the tree to fall on and kill those staying in one or more cabins, is the camp liable there?f Should they have built the roofs stronger? Had lightning rods?

I pray for the families and their recoveries from such a tragedy. But rather than litigation here I would much rather see investment in flash flood warning systems, public education on flash floods in canyon areas, and more oversight of summer camps which somehow still seems to be lacking.

It should never have taken such a tragedy for improvements to be made in these areas.

Years ago I had a coworker who fell out of a tree because the tree blind he was in failed. He broke his back and suffered temporary partial paralysis and endure lengthy PT before he could walk unaided again. He sued the manufacturer of the blind, and allegedly his only requests were to cover his medical and legal expenses and to agree to take the faulty equipment off the market. (I suspect he also got also got some cash that he then used to set up a trust for his special needs son, but he never mentioned it).

They are probably rare, but not everyone sues to just to get the windfall.

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you seemed to have completely missed his point.

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

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

---

Yeah, I agree here.

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

---

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

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

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

txags92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you seemed to have completely missed his point.

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

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

---

Yeah, I agree here.

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

---

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

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

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

---

In theory, I agree. In dealing in real life and with human nature, I am very doubtful that would work. We are fallen creatures.
And it is not my place to tell parents who have lost an 8 y/o girl to negligence what path they should pursue.
You still have to get lawyers involved also. Mystic is not just going to willingly give up all their assets.

redcrayon said:

---

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'm not sure cell phones are even reliable out there. If each cabin did not have a way to communicate in case of emergency, that's insane.

---

But didn't the camp have night-time security? I would think monitoring the weather would be among their most important functions. They would get the flood warnings, then go to the cabins to wake up the girls.

They did. The guy who was ultimately trapped and helped save girls in one cabin where the water came up very high. Problem is with crap communication, it was basically him, Dick Eastland, and Eastland's son running around trying to evacuate girls or in some cases telling them to stay. The quality of the monitoring may have been okay, but a combination of poor communication methods that slowed down evacuation and poor judgment on how many cabins were at risk seems to be a major issue. Also, while it sounds like they did monitor for the flash flood watch/warning, I'm not sure how quickly they got started vs a wait and see what's real or not. So big picture, I think they were "monitoring", but their assessment of the risk, evac plan, and execution of the evac plan was all woefully inadequate

BusterAg said:

---

Did the parents have to sign a liability waiver that related to flooding?

---

That would only possibly make a difference if the adults (the parents) had died in the flooding. A waiver would make no difference with regards to the children.

I'm talking in general, not specific to this set of affected camps on this situation only. People with facilities along the River should be well aware of and prepared for what it is capable of.

My point is that they aren't the only ones, as was alleged. There are many other people that are aware of flash floods, where and how they happen, and how to prepare and real with them. There are many more who are not.

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

Tort reform is needed.

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

At most, I think an RV park posting a sign and having paperwork that says "Area at risk of flooding. You are responsible for monitoring NWS storm watches and warnings and evacuating to higher ground" is sufficient. They don't owe anyone a night watchman or their own warning system

But again, for the camps, if you take in minors and collect $$$ for being the responsible adult, then understanding the risk of where you are housing them, monitoring the warnings and conditions, and executing an effective evacuation plan is your responsibility. You accepted that responsibility fully. There's no waivering your way out of it

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Some lawyers are.

LarryLayman said:

---

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

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

At most, I think an RV park posting a sign and having paperwork that says "Area at risk of flooding. You are responsible for monitoring NWS storm watches and warnings and evacuating to higher ground" is sufficient. They don't owe anyone a night watchman or their own warning system

But again, for the camps, if you take in minors and collect $$$ for being the responsible adult, then understanding the risk of where you are housing them, monitoring the warnings and conditions, and executing an effective evacuation plan is your responsibility. You accepted that responsibility fully. There's no waivering your way out of it

---

I remember seeing those signs when I camped in Palo Duro Canyon. It would not have occurred to me that one good storm during the night could wash my family away in minutes.

Buffalo attract people to Yellowstone, and hippos attract people to safaris. But I wouldn't have know that a hippo could track down a safari car from 200 yards away unless the guide told me.

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

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

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

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

DannyDuberstein said:

---

At most, I think an RV park posting a sign and having paperwork that says "Area at risk of flooding. You are responsible for monitoring NWS storm watches and warnings and evacuating to higher ground" is sufficient. They don't owe anyone a night watchman or their own warning system

But again, for the camps, if you take in minors and collect $$$ for being the responsible adult, then understanding the risk of where you are housing them, monitoring the warnings and conditions, and executing an effective evacuation plan is your responsibility. You accepted that responsibility fully. There's no waivering your way out of it

---

I don't think the RV Park owes you any kind of warning about potential hazards that are beyond their control. They are required to provide you with a safe and sanitary facility (ie electrical hookups up to code, clean potable water, etc.), but things beyond their control like flooding, tornados, lightning, hail, etc. are exactly that, beyond their control. Requiring them to warn you of every possible hazard is a slippery slope. Does that mean every campground in Texas has to get guests to sign a paper saying they have been warned that "it might be hot outside and you should stay appropriately hydrated". Just putting up signs gives no proof that the warning was actually delivered after all. What about snakes, or scorpions, or wasps that people might be allergic to? Do we really want checking into a campground to require filling out pages and pages paperwork acknowledging that we are aware of possible hazards like you would fill out to get into a doctor's appt?

As you say, the camps for kids are a completely different situation. They have accepted responsibility for the care and safety of the kids enrolled at the camp and have a much higher duty than the RV Park operator that simply rented a spot to park and connect an RV.

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

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

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

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

---

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

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

twk said:

---

LarryLayman said:

---

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

---

The county didn't want to spend the money.

---

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

---

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

---

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