I travel for work a lot. Nearly everywhere I've been across the country, I've encountered people that were enraged with how that camp was built in a flood plain. I've argued that they don't understand the hill country and how the rain flows through those hills and rocks. It's a risk of the hill country. I've even explained that I wouldn't think twice about leaving my daughters in a cabin in that area because heck I've even stayed in that area with my family. All these foreigners, meaning people from outside of Texas, think I'm absolutely insane.

Unfortunately, I bet some funded plaintiff attorneys are already working on this.

100% support the plantiffs and their families. Mystic should be held accountable for their actions/inactions. They knew the risks.

T&P Derm

Might as well remove every structure along every river west of 35 then.

You're not going to get a conversation about legalities.....there is too much emotion still from such a tragic event that touched so many people in this state. It's just still too fresh. It would be akin to walking onto campus in February 2000 and attempting to have a similar conversation about Bonfire.

I was born and raised on the Guadalupe by Spring Branch. I was there in 1978 when the river crested at almost 46 ft at the Spring Branch gauge. Much higher than this past event. My family homesteaded on the river around the mid 1800's. German immigrants of course. All our neighbors were different German families that did the same.
Most of those old original homesites of those homesteads along the Guadalupe never flooded, or if so, not catastrophically.
Those old settlers had the knowledge to look at the land and know pretty well how high the Guadalupe had ever risen and not build their homes below that.
In my opinion, and that's worth little, is we lost that knowledge as those folks died off and replaced it with nefarious FEMA flood plain data that was not accurate nor complete.
That data gave folks a false sense of security of where to build. They thought, from the data, they would be safe.
Sometime in its past history, the Guadalupe flooded before like what it did on July 4th. It will do it again. It might be next year, 10 years, 100 years or 500 years from now, but it will do it again, and who is to say it won't be worse yet.

My home is in a flood plain and I get to pay for flood insurance.

300+ days per year there are zero concerns about flooding. On some days, we have to pay close attention and have a plan.

There are too many structures to count in flood plains nationally. Flood plains are not the issue.

The issues with the camps will be about the plan and not about being in the flood plain.

In court cases, people present their side and the other side then can respond.

I will present a cursory case against Mystic based on what I know.

First of all, there is a historical precedent for flooding in the camp area. The owners had been there for years and had to know that. I am not sure about details of FEMA recommendations, etc.

You have no plan except to stay in your cabins and leadership will tell you what to do.

You have over 700 girls with only three adults even after receiving a flood warning.

You have no sirens, no walkie talkies, no means of communication.

You have ample time to get all the girls out safely. You are confronted by at least two of the counselors at least three times about moving the girls to safety and you told them to stay in their cabins. Thankfully, some disobeyed and therefore saved their campers.

I think this easily meets the standard of negligence as any leadership with any common sense and due diligence would have had a plan for a known historical possible event.

Then Mystic doubles down by saying they are re opening the Camp only six weeks after the funerals and one girl's body is still missing. And do not even contact all the deceased girls' families. It is like nothing happened. Mystic must go on.

And I apologize for getting emotional at the end but the blatant disregard of these girls' lives is appalling to me.

Troy91 said:

---

My home is in a flood plain and I get to pay for flood insurance.

300+ days per year there are zero concerns about flooding. On some days, we have to pay close attention and have a plan.

There are too many structures to count in flood plains nationally. Flood plains are not the issue.

The issues with the camps will be about the plan and not about being in the flood plain.

---

With all due respect, I believe if you run a camp with over 700 young girls (not just your family) there should be an increased awareness. That is just common sense.

I agree with you, Doc.

The suit is about the depth of the plan and the execution of the plan. We agree on the liability.

Some are going to try to make it about where they are in a flood plain. That is noise as there is tons of data about buildings in flood plains who have actual plans.

Focus on the "plan" and the events. All of the "why are they even in a flood plain" is a losing argument IMO.

I agree with you 100%. I referenced people being enraged about the flood plain issue as an example of how little the general public understands about the situation. Most people are upset about the flood plain issue and being proof that mystic "should have known." They completely miss the real issue.

And unfortunately, all of these misunderstood perceptions fuel emotion and anger.

Troy91 said:

---

I agree with you, Doc.

The suit is about the depth of the plan and the execution of the plan. We agree on the liability.

Some are going to try to make it about where they are in a flood plain. That is noise as there is tons of data about buildings in flood plains who have actual plans.

Focus on the "plan" and the events. All of the "why are they even in a flood plain" is a losing argument IMO.

---

If I ran a camp like this, no way would I put it in a flood plain. Especially with the history. And with over 700 girls I am responsible for. We will agree to disagree.

I do agree with you that with an adequate plan that there was time to save all the campers.

My concern about the "they were in a flood plain" argument is that you run very quickly into "assumption of the risk" by the campers.

It was known that the camp was in a flood plain.

I would avoid that issue at all costs as an attorney. Being in the flood plain is not where either of us would put a camp. And, I have fond memories of Mo Ranch as a child with zero memories of its flood plain status.

To avoid any attempt to blame the campers, hit them with "you had a terrible plan and you did poorly in executing it". That is the simplest way to teach the lesson to this camp and all of the others.

Troy91 said:

---

My concern about the "they were in a flood plain" argument is that you run very quickly into "assumption of the risk" by the campers.

It was known that the camp was in a flood plain.

I would avoid that issue at all costs as an attorney. Being in the flood plain is not where either of us would put a camp. And, I have fond memories of Mo Ranch as a child with zero memories of its flood plain status.

To avoid any attempt to blame the campers, hit them with "you had a terrible plan and you did poorly in executing it". That is the simplest way to teach the lesson to this camp and all of the others.

---

Agree.

I just don't see how the camp isn't held accountable. They had dozens of campera trusted in their care yet litigated to try and build more Structures knowing they werent in the flood plain but the actual flood way. They don't let people building the flood way but mystic used their Clout to get what they wanted even when that was knowingly going to eventually result in serious harm.

I went to Camp Lobghorn as an 8 year old and I don't know what lesson watching your cabin and mates and counselors float away provides provides but I'd say not building cabins in the flood way and putting children that are 8 in it's path is a great start.

So sorry for your loss derm. Still can't belive this was allowed to happen. Holding you and your family in our prayers always.

They werent in the flood plain. They were in the flood way. Big difference that you guys seem to keep just glossing over.

Bayou City said:

---

I just don't see how the camp isn't held accountable. They had dozens of campera trusted in their care yet litigated to try and build more Structures knowing they werent in the flood plain but the actual flood way. They don't let people building the flood way but mystic used their Clout to get what they wanted even when that was knowingly going to eventually result in serious harm.

I went to Camp Lobghorn as an 8 year old and I don't know what lesson watching your cabin and mates and counselors float away provides provides but I'd say not building cabins in the flood way and putting children that are 8 in it's path is a great start.

So sorry for your loss derm. Still can't belive this was allowed to happen. Holding you and your family in our prayers always.

---

Thanks.

It is the conflict of "we want to recreate or live or stay next to the water" vs "on extremely rare occasions that water can kill one or many of us". People chose to risk some increase in danger to have a more enjoyable experience. The question is always to what degree the actual risk is understood by whom, agreed to be accepted, and if there was reasonable and foreseeable mitigation attempted in good faith or not.

In my mind, the Mystic case comes down to a few bullet items that weight heavily against Mystic.

#1) They had put a lot of work into finding out where the cabins were relatively to the updated flood plain maps (likely driven by their insurance provider) and determined that most of the cabins (including the ones where the girls perished) were above the 100 year flood elevation. That is all fine and good, but that does not mean those cabins will never flood. It just means they won't flood under the 100 year flood level of rainfall. Mystic's first mistake was making a plan to keep campers in the flood plain even if the base elevation of the cabins was a few feet above that arbitrarily chosen 100-year elevation. The 100 year elevation is used for flood insurance planning and is not and should not be used as some kind of line above which there is no perceived risk.

#2) Mystic had a plan of sorts. It relied heavily on Dick to make all the decisions and they were supposed to be able to communicate directly to the counselors in the cabins via radio. They provided no radios and did not give the counselors any authority to make decisions on their own about when to evacuate if needed. The ones that disobeyed orders to stay put saved their kids. Having a plan (no matter how flawed) and not following it is going to get them killed by the attorneys (and rightfully so).

#3) The planned evacuation locations were not much better than the cabins in terms of elevation and didn't have the capacity to handle all of the campers at risk in the flood plain. Goes back to this was a flawed plan from the beginning.

#4) Ultimately, I think the tragedy happened because Dick didn't believe such a flood was possible based on the lived experiences he had on the property running the camp. Just like people who lived through a dozen Cat 2/3 hurricanes on the coast who mistakenly decide to ride out what turns out to be a Cat 5 because they have become complacent, he was wrong and paid for it with his life and the lives of 27 others.

As far as the legal strategy with the multiple cases, it looks to me like a coordinated plan to give the families multiple bites at the apple, each using a slightly different strategy. It also puts maximum pressure and cost on the Eastlands to defend against multiple suits knowing they have to win them all or could lose a huge verdict on any given case. That strategy seems likely to be designed to heavily encourage a settlement out of court, which I think would be to the benefit of everybody. Nobody wants to put those families through the agony of multiple trials dredging up all the gory details of how their daughters died and how it didn't have to happen that way. To me, the best settlement is one that turns the camp and land over to the families and lets them decide how best to memorialize their daughters and whether/when/how to best reopen a camp there if at all.

I hope with time beyond their tragic losses, hopefully all of the families can separate the tragedy of what happened there from the good that thousands of young girls experienced as well and find a way to be at peace with a camp returning at some point in the future. What that looks like and who would run it (certainly not the Eastlands) is not for me to say and would hopefully be a decision made by the families of the 27.

I would just hate at a personal level to see the property where so many young girls made lifelong friends and memories snatched up by the Bass family just to increase the size of their private holdings out there or sold off for luxury ranchette development. Two of my favorite childhood scout camps (Hill Country Scout Ranch near Dripping Springs and El Rancho Cima west of San Marcos) are now gone and filled with 5-10 acre ranchettes for the wealthy, and that fate would IMO be the worst possible way to remember Heaven's 27.

Quote:

---

I'm guessing Mystic will simply declare bankruptcy as soon as the first judgment is issued. Given the number of victims, I doubt there would be much money to go around individually even if you take all of their cash, land, and policy liability.

---

I agree that this is likely how it will play out, and unfortunately, no one really wins in this situation.

River Bass said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm guessing Mystic will simply declare bankruptcy as soon as the first judgment is issued. Given the number of victims, I doubt there would be much money to go around individually even if you take all of their cash, land, and policy liability.

---

I agree that this is likely how it will play out, and unfortunately, no one really wins in this situation.

---

Disagree. Future campers and their families win. Much less room for negligence.None of those girls should have died. It astounds me how these deaths seem to mean so little. It is not always about money.

I think the last thing the parents want is to seperate future kids or campers from the lord and the opportunity to grow and explore their faith w friends. I think they want to make sure it's done in a safe environment so that this type of tragedy never happens again. Money doesn't bring any of them back but creating an environment that saves others is one small small way to honor those lost.

dermdoc said:

---

River Bass said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm guessing Mystic will simply declare bankruptcy as soon as the first judgment is issued. Given the number of victims, I doubt there would be much money to go around individually even if you take all of their cash, land, and policy liability.

---

I agree that this is likely how it will play out, and unfortunately, no one really wins in this situation.

---

Disagree. Future campers and their families win. Much less room for negligence.None of those girls should have died. It astounds me how these deaths seem to mean so little. It is not always about money.

---

This thread was about the legal ramifications and my comment was directed at the likely outcome of any eventual lawsuit. That is not dismissive of the value of their lives nor is it a statement that it's about money.

dermdoc said:

---

River Bass said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm guessing Mystic will simply declare bankruptcy as soon as the first judgment is issued. Given the number of victims, I doubt there would be much money to go around individually even if you take all of their cash, land, and policy liability.

---

I agree that this is likely how it will play out, and unfortunately, no one really wins in this situation.

---

Disagree. Future campers and their families win. Much less room for negligence. None of those girls should have died. It astounds me how these deaths seem to mean so little. It is not always about money.

---

Derm, I get that it's very personal to you. No offense is intended by this post.

But I will point out in response, do we think of the future generations of Aggies as winners because student leadership, individual administrators, contractors and the school were subjected to a decade of litigation? Are we winners because a beloved but potentially dangerous tradition no longer exists in any form on campus? Were personal injury lawsuits the only means to have prevented a repeat of the tragedy? I doubt it, though reasonable minds could differ.

Those girls, in life and death, mean so much. Obviously their loss cannot be quantified. And I very much doubt that money motivates the parent plaintiffs. But money absolutely, positively is the animating force behind these suits. The suits do not seek injunctions against reopening the camp. Monetary relief is the sole relief requested in the lawsuits. After liability, the task of jurors will only be to fill in number blanks $________. These suits will not change the laws, regulations or administrative decisions that may have affected or could have prevented the tragedy. The reasons these personal injury firms are lining up is not altruism, no matter what they claim otherwise. They are not doing it pro bono or to effect change. A 40% cut of verdict or settlement is their motivation. Money is why some otherwise very lovely people/plaintiffs will find themselves and the legacy of their daughters represented by some rather unsavory (unethical?) representatives. Money is the reason why the surviving members of the Eastland family, Glenn Juenke and likely others will live under a cloud of litigation, depositions and intense scrutiny over the next few years. Money is also the reason why that property will be liquidated to satisfy judgments and no longer serve as a camp for girls. It is not always about money, but these lawsuits expressly are.

I can appreciate the desire to do anything possible to turn a tragedy into something positive. To assign blame to the parties that we feel wronged us and to have those opinions validated by others. To keep fighting on behalf of a lost loved one. I just don't know that this is the way.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

River Bass said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm guessing Mystic will simply declare bankruptcy as soon as the first judgment is issued. Given the number of victims, I doubt there would be much money to go around individually even if you take all of their cash, land, and policy liability.

---

I agree that this is likely how it will play out, and unfortunately, no one really wins in this situation.

---

Disagree. Future campers and their families win. Much less room for negligence. None of those girls should have died. It astounds me how these deaths seem to mean so little. It is not always about money.

---

Derm, I get that it's very personal to you. No offense is intended by this post.

But I will point out in response, do we think of the future generations of Aggies as winners because student leadership, individual administrators, contractors and the school were subjected to a decade of litigation? Are we winners because a beloved but potentially dangerous tradition no longer exists in any form on campus? Were personal injury lawsuits the only means to have prevented a repeat of the tragedy? I doubt it, though reasonable minds could differ.

Those girls, in life and death, mean so much. Obviously their loss cannot be quantified. And I very much doubt that money motivates the parent plaintiffs. But money absolutely, positively is the animating force behind these suits. The suits do not seek injunctions against reopening the camp. Monetary relief is the sole relief requested in the lawsuits. After liability, the task of jurors will only be to fill in number blanks $________. These suits will not change the laws, regulations or administrative decisions that may have affected or could have prevented the tragedy. The reasons these personal injury firms are lining up is not altruism, no matter what they claim otherwise. They are not doing it pro bono or to effect change. A 40% cut of verdict or settlement is their motivation. Money is why some otherwise very lovely people/plaintiffs will find themselves and the legacy of their daughters represented by some rather unsavory (unethical?) representatives. Money is the reason why the surviving members of the Eastland family, Glenn Juenke and likely others will live under a cloud of litigation, depositions and intense scrutiny over the next few years. Money is also the reason why that property will be liquidated to satisfy judgments and no longer serve as a camp for girls. It is not always about money, but these lawsuits expressly are.

I can appreciate the desire to do anything possible to turn a tragedy into something positive. To assign blame to the parties that we feel wronged us and to have those opinions validated by others. To keep fighting on behalf of a lost loved one. I just don't know that this is the way.

---

What other way is there? We got the new legislation passed which hopefully will help keep this from happening again.

And how did Mystic respond? Not contacting all of the deceased families and then announcing they are reopening 6 weeks after the funerals with one girl's body still missing?
I understand legal stuff, but I believe Mystic could have expressed more regret and held off opening for a while. It just seems so calloused.

dermdoc said:

---

What other way is there? We got the new legislation passed which hopefully will help keep this from happening again.

And how did Mystic respond? Not contacting all of the deceased families and then announcing they are reopening 6 weeks after the funerals with one girl's body still missing?
I understand legal stuff, but I believe Mystic could have expressed more regret and held off opening for a while. It just seems so calloused.

---

I agree with the idea legislative and administrative changes at the local, state and federal levels. Assuming for the sake of argument that this was a predictable/preventable event, then legal changes to prevent buildings being exempted or grandfathered in the floodway seems reasonable. I believe the state legislation prevents this going forward. Local requirements for an audible river warning system seems reasonable, though I question the amount of time that buys you when a wall of water is heading downstream. I would even favor criminal prosecution if it shown that laws were violated that caused those girls to perish. But the civil lawsuit won't accomplish that.

Mystic is in a bit of a d___ed if you do, d___ed if you don't position. Dick Eastland died, but efforts to mourn him are deemed insensitive. Efforts to memorialize the girls or express sympathy are deemed clumsy, offensive and outside their right to do so. Silence about the girls is also deemed callous. Any words stated to the families will surely be used as fodder in the civil suits.

I will say that I think it extremely foolish and provocative to attempt to hold the camp this year, and likely the next several years. They could definitely benefit from following professional public relations advice instead of winging it. It doesn't much matter though, because the Eastlands will be ruined, the entities bankrupt and the camp sold off when this is over. And a few lawyers will have deeper pockets for luxury purchases.