Right there is the difference between a "flood" and a "tsunami"
Legal ramifications against Camp Mystic
85,140 Views |
736 Replies |
Last: 17 hrs ago by MAS444
KerrAg76 said:
Right there is the difference between a "flood" and a "tsunami"
The time line shows there was plenty of time to safely evacuate everybody. The long video provided by Badace is very informative and worth a watch.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:Senator Blutarski said:
Houston Chronicle OPED
I am blocked by a paywall. I read the first part and was not impressed. Unless they interviewed and got the opinion of at least one parent who lost a child then their opinion means nothing to me.
The author is entitled to her opinion but she doesn't get it. Myatic is not more important than 27 lives and she doesn't get that.
You can click "view in reader" on an iPhone to bypass the paywall, but if you aren't a fan of irony and selfish entitlement you wouldn't appreciate it.
Yeah I'll just say there's a difference between an individual person's/family's duties/obligations and an entity who is entrusted with the care and custody of hundreds of young girls.
Welp we were surprised too and also lost lives so Mystic isn't at fault either is very flawed logic. Plus I'm guessing there's some amount of justifying their own unpreparedness/bad decisions in that op Ed.
Welp we were surprised too and also lost lives so Mystic isn't at fault either is very flawed logic. Plus I'm guessing there's some amount of justifying their own unpreparedness/bad decisions in that op Ed.
Senator Blutarski said:
It's two separate camps, with separate entrances, separate facilities, separate activity areas.
ETA a quote from the oped: " And better than most families, we understand the alacrity and horrific power of the July 4 flood. One of my sisters and my niece also lost their lives that night not at Camp Mystic, but at the vacation home my parents built in 1976, three miles downriver from Camp Mystic's site on the Guadalupe."
" But not in July 2025. In a matter of minutes the floodwaters forced open the bolted front door. Rushing water crested over the house with such force that it was swept off its foundation, taking my niece and my sister with it."
My nephew who lost a girl said it best "Everybody says Oh I can't imagine what you are going through.. I want to say yes you can, you just don't want to go there".
He said everyday when he walks by Mary Grace's bedroom door it hits him again. He said the worst thing is he keeps finding little things of hers around the house.
Until the parents are okay with re opening any Mystic camp, they should not open in my opinion.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
jh0400 said:dermdoc said:Senator Blutarski said:
Houston Chronicle OPED
I am blocked by a paywall. I read the first part and was not impressed. Unless they interviewed and got the opinion of at least one parent who lost a child then their opinion means nothing to me.
The author is entitled to her opinion but she doesn't get it. Myatic is not more important than 27 lives and she doesn't get that.
You can click "view in reader" on an iPhone to bypass the paywall, but if you aren't a fan of irony and selfish entitlement you wouldn't appreciate it.
No thanks. I got the gist from the little I read.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
MAS444 said:
Yeah I'll just say there's a difference between an individual person's/family's duties/obligations and an entity who is entrusted with the care and custody of hundreds of young girls.
They don't get it. And like my nephew said so well they choose not to.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Absolutely - but it doesn't mean people need to completely dismiss the tragedy up and down the Guadalupe. It's a horrible tragedy even if it was nobody's fault and just a horrible natural disaster. It's a horrible tragedy if it was somebody's fault as well. Politicians who all of a sudden care about this issue are doing it for one reason. Politics is never going to result in adequate solutions.
It's turned strange in some wierd ways when if people even try to say care about these other deaths too the response is almost shut the **** up and don't draw attention to that.
It's turned strange in some wierd ways when if people even try to say care about these other deaths too the response is almost shut the **** up and don't draw attention to that.
Agree.
Alta said:
Absolutely - but it doesn't mean people need to completely dismiss the tragedy up and down the Guadalupe. It's a horrible tragedy even if it was nobody's fault and just a horrible natural disaster. It's a horrible tragedy if it was somebody's fault as well. Politicians who all of a sudden care about this issue are doing it for one reason. Politics is never going to result in adequate solutions.
It's turned strange in some wierd ways when if people even try to say care about these other deaths too the response is almost shut the **** up and don't draw attention to that.
I care about those deaths. The topic is Camp Mystic and the legal ramifications. Unfortunately, it is clear that without the pols Mystic was going to re open. I am grateful for the Governor and Lieutenant governor. You are entitled to your opinion as am I.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Have the pols said what they will do about the other 91 deaths? Is Camp LaJunta (where cabins floated away with people in them) going to be able to reopen? The RV parks on the river?
Heart of the Hills was literally wiped off the map, so it is being rebuilt elsewhere. But is the state looking into why its cabins (thankfully empty) were more impacted than Mystic?
Are the pols doing a good job of investigating if not once it was mentioned that the NWS just a couple of weeks ago classified this as a 1,000 year flood? Seems relevant to a committee called the "July 4 Flood Committee".
I too grieve for the girls and their families. I would be beside myself with anger about the entire ordeal if it was my family. My faith would be tested beyond measure. But I am not impressed with the job these politicians are doing.
Heart of the Hills was literally wiped off the map, so it is being rebuilt elsewhere. But is the state looking into why its cabins (thankfully empty) were more impacted than Mystic?
Are the pols doing a good job of investigating if not once it was mentioned that the NWS just a couple of weeks ago classified this as a 1,000 year flood? Seems relevant to a committee called the "July 4 Flood Committee".
I too grieve for the girls and their families. I would be beside myself with anger about the entire ordeal if it was my family. My faith would be tested beyond measure. But I am not impressed with the job these politicians are doing.
the issue with talking about the 91 is where the discussion goes there, and they don't want that. But, the entire Hill Country sees what's going on.Senator Blutarski said:
Have the pols said what they will do about the other 91 deaths? Is Camp LaJunta (where cabins floated away with people in them) going to be able to reopen? The RV parks on the river?
Heart of the Hills was literally wiped off the map, so it is being rebuilt elsewhere. But is the state looking into why its cabins (thankfully empty) were more impacted than Mystic?
Are the pols doing a good job of investigating if not once it was mentioned that the NWS just a couple of weeks ago classified this as a 1,000 year flood? Seems relevant to a committee called the "July 4 Flood Committee".
I too grieve for the girls and their families. I would be beside myself with anger about the entire ordeal if it was my family. My faith would be tested beyond measure. But I am not impressed with the job these politicians are doing.
Nonconstructive comment removed
jh0400 said:
Nonconstructive comment removed
Is it?
Question is, will the judge allow evidence/testimony on anything other than the actions of the Eastlands?
This is the answer. It's unfortunately all politics which is not the answer. What happened at Mystic is a tragedy. What happened to the other 91 is a tragedy. Nothing a politician or a jury does will change that.
I don't need a politician to decide (more than already exists) on the decisions my wife and I make for our family. There is too much of that already. We are responsible for those decisions.
And what a jury decides will not (nor should it) change people's minds as to what occurred. It will decide financial responsibility in a very imperfect way. I could go on a long rant about this part of our legal system but that will be way off topic.
People should gather information and form their own opinion. And use that information to inform decisions they make moving forward. That' is personal freedom and what we need more of in this country and not less of.
And it's possible to have the above beliefs and care deeply about not only the Mystic girls but the other 91 who lost their lives last year (and in our case be very close personally to multiple of the Mystic families).
I don't need a politician to decide (more than already exists) on the decisions my wife and I make for our family. There is too much of that already. We are responsible for those decisions.
And what a jury decides will not (nor should it) change people's minds as to what occurred. It will decide financial responsibility in a very imperfect way. I could go on a long rant about this part of our legal system but that will be way off topic.
People should gather information and form their own opinion. And use that information to inform decisions they make moving forward. That' is personal freedom and what we need more of in this country and not less of.
And it's possible to have the above beliefs and care deeply about not only the Mystic girls but the other 91 who lost their lives last year (and in our case be very close personally to multiple of the Mystic families).
Why would they? Do the actions of others have anything to do with the specific actions of the Eastlands leading up to and during the events of July 4, 2025?
Maybe there is something cultural in the area that outsiders don't understand, but to anyone that hasn't been indoctrinated their actions in the days since are a headscratcher. I'm not from the area nor do I have any direct experience with the Eastlands or their camp, but I was shocked when I saw on the news that they planned to reopen when by all accounts they should have been preparing to be the defendants in nine figures worth of wrongful death suits. Then it comes out that they apparently more effort into becoming judgment proof than preparing for a potential flood when they are entrusted with the welfare of hundreds of children.
The fact that it was a tragic event affecting hundreds and that the Eastlands are potentially directly liable for the deaths of 27 are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe there is something cultural in the area that outsiders don't understand, but to anyone that hasn't been indoctrinated their actions in the days since are a headscratcher. I'm not from the area nor do I have any direct experience with the Eastlands or their camp, but I was shocked when I saw on the news that they planned to reopen when by all accounts they should have been preparing to be the defendants in nine figures worth of wrongful death suits. Then it comes out that they apparently more effort into becoming judgment proof than preparing for a potential flood when they are entrusted with the welfare of hundreds of children.
The fact that it was a tragic event affecting hundreds and that the Eastlands are potentially directly liable for the deaths of 27 are not mutually exclusive.
That will be the challenge plaintiffs face. Not only finding a jury that hasn't heard about the event, but keeping out the circumstances of the flood.
Alta said:
This is the answer. It's unfortunately all politics which is not the answer. What happened at Mystic is a tragedy. What happened to the other 91 is a tragedy. Nothing a politician or a jury does will change that.
I don't need a politician to decide (more than already exists) on the decisions my wife and I make for our family. There is too much of that already. We are responsible for those decisions.
And what a jury decides will not (nor should it) change people's minds as to what occurred. It will decide financial responsibility in a very imperfect way. I could go on a long rant about this part of our legal system but that will be way off topic.
People should gather information and form their own opinion. And use that information to inform decisions they make moving forward. That' is personal freedom and what we need more of in this country and not less of.
And it's possible to have the above beliefs and care deeply about not only the Mystic girls but the other 91 who lost their lives last year (and in our case be very close personally to multiple of the Mystic families).
Fair enough. Y'all do understand that Mystic has an entire different liability and responsibility than me taking my family out to camp on the Guadalupe?
And from watching the timeline video provided y Badace, my opinion is that with just a little planning these deaths would have been easily prevented. And I despise pols but Mystic was going to re open unless they stopped them. And I am thankful for that. I know we disagree but I respect your opinion.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
A skilled plaintiff's attorney should be able to direct focus accordingly. IMO, the bigger challenge will be collecting on any judgement due to the layer cake ownership structure that protects the real asset.
MAS444 said:
Agree.
I'd consider you an expert here, what's your take? Yes, I know nothing's a slam dunk, but is this a slam dunk for the plaintiffs? What would you guess damages end up being?
Ducks4brkfast said:MAS444 said:
Agree.
I'd consider you an expert here, what's your take? Yes, I know nothing's a slam dunk, but is this a slam dunk for the plaintiffs? What would you guess damages end up being?
I know you're not asking me but in my uneducated opinion, probably the limits of their insurance policy.
As has been stated multiple times, Stacy Eastland is THE GUY when it comes to these types of limited family partnerships. If his own personal one doesn't hold water, there are going to be a lot of worried, wealthy individuals questioning if their assets are actually protected.
As you say, nothing is a slam dunk and I wouldn't say this is one. Really good lawyers on the defense side. But just based on the facts I've seen, I'd sure rather be on the Plaintiffs' side than the Defendants' (trying to be as objective as possible, which is admittedly difficult). The potential damages are huge - many millions per child/family. But they're all non-economic damages (pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc). I assume they will be able to prove up some degree/amount of "survival" damages for the children while they were still allive and then wrongful death damages to the surviving parents. However, "non-economic" damage awards often get reduced/rejected significantly by our appellate courts. That will be the first hurdle after a large favorable verdict for Plaintiffs - keeping the verdict on appeal. Next comes the collection efforts, which will be difficult as has been discussed.
I'm also very curious to know how much available insurance there is. My sheer guess is not much at all (couple million maybe)...but am sometimes surprised.
I'm also very curious to know how much available insurance there is. My sheer guess is not much at all (couple million maybe)...but am sometimes surprised.
Senator Blutarski said:
It's two separate camps, with separate entrances, separate facilities, separate activity areas.
So why were they not operating under separate licenses prior to July 2025?
Ogre09
Joined:
Dec 28, 2007
Posts:
15,142
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Their insurance should be way beefier than a standard businesses. Camps are high risk. Shouldn't it have categories that cover per instance and most of what is being sued for? I guess I'd think there would be a lot more money to go round on the insurance side but I dunno.
I'd be more concerned that it may not be covered at all if the plaintiff's are able to prove gross negligence. I don't have experience in running a camp, but the commercial insurance policies that I've seen had exclusions for gross negligence and willful misconduct.
Totally agree, but I don't think that's going to be a thing in this case.
I agree in theory but high risk + lots of coverage is very expensive. And many carriers won't even insure at higher levels. I've never had a case against a summer camp but have against similar type establishments (large water parka, amusement parka etc). Some that are very large and do tons of business. And often only 1 - 3 MM in coverage.
Senator Blutarski said:
Have the pols said what they will do about the other 91 deaths? Is Camp LaJunta (where cabins floated away with people in them) going to be able to reopen? The RV parks on the river?
Heart of the Hills was literally wiped off the map, so it is being rebuilt elsewhere. But is the state looking into why its cabins (thankfully empty) were more impacted than Mystic?
Are the pols doing a good job of investigating if not once it was mentioned that the NWS just a couple of weeks ago classified this as a 1,000 year flood? Seems relevant to a committee called the "July 4 Flood Committee".
I too grieve for the girls and their families. I would be beside myself with anger about the entire ordeal if it was my family. My faith would be tested beyond measure. But I am not impressed with the job these politicians are doing.
If Heart of the Hills had been in session...my God. You are talking about hundreds of deaths. Hundreds.
MAS444 said:
I agree in theory but high risk + lots of coverage is very expensive. And many carriers won't even insure at higher levels. I've never had a case against a summer camp but have against similar type establishments (large water parka, amusement parka etc). Some that are very large and do tons of business. And often only 1 - 3 MM in coverage.
Agree. I would bet Mystic had a 2-3 million dollar umbrella policy. It will be interesting to see if the plaintiff attorneys can "Pierce the veil".
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I understand that Mystic basically has two seperate camps...the Cypress one that is up higher and had no damage at all, and the older guadalupe part that was where the flooding happened. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Eastlands only wanted to open Cypress this summer, not Guadalupe? And the families don't even want that to happen as long as the Eastlands are running the show? If the Eastlands were out of the picture are they still opposed to any opening? If the never opened Guadalupe again but just tried to open Cypress at some point, is that ok? I'm just curious what the stance is.
They don't want the Eastlands running anything because they do not seem equipped to handle any serious safety issues, and quite frankly, based on that unbelievably piss poor emergency and communication plan, piss poor decision to house the youngest counselors with the youngest campers, and the fact any important decision there was done by Dick so those remaining are mainly order-following rubes, I think they are correct. And by safety, i'm talking more than floods. They weren't equipped to handle much of anything serious
DannyDuberstein said:
They don't want the Eastlands running anything because they do not seem equipped to handle any serious safety issues, and quite frankly, based on that unbelievably piss poor emergency plan, piss poor decision to house the youngest counselors with the youngest campers, and the fact any important decision there was done by Dick, I think they are correct.
ok. yes i agree. I think if it had been truly a situation with a terrible tragedy at guadalupe but the general consensus was the Eastlands did all they could, I could see it being ok to open Cypress. But the more that comes out, the lack of a plan, the way they have treated the families....even if rationally you could open Cypress I don't see how you can now.
MAS444 said:
I agree in theory but high risk + lots of coverage is very expensive. And many carriers won't even insure at higher levels. I've never had a case against a summer camp but have against similar type establishments (large water parka, amusement parka etc). Some that are very large and do tons of business. And often only 1 - 3 MM in coverage.
So is it safe to say that even though it's going to be nearly impossible to touch gross negligence, or pierce the corporate veil, it is possible that the judgements could be so high as to require mystic to sell assets to cover them? Or would they be allowed to pay off over time as income allows ? How does that work?
Featured Stories
See All
12:35
13h ago
7.3k
Resilience of Moss and Hacopian salvages series finale
by Richard Zane
6:35
14h ago
2.3k
#4 Texas A&M dances to Sweet 16 by beating Baylor, 4-1
by Luke Evangelist
6:59
1d ago
6.8k
Photo Gallery: 102,000 pack Kyle Field for Banana Ball
by Daniel Grant
91 CT
I appreciate our social media team but this wasn't a great look
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
9