chickencoupe16 said:

---

So if they had moved the girls to the higher ground of the dining hall and that got washed away, would you be arguing they should have gone higher? What would have been high enough for you to say they did all they could reasonably do? If they moved the girls, no cabins got flooded, but a tree fell and killed someone during the evacuation, would you be arguing they shouldn't have evacuated?

---

"high enough" is to the highest structure on site.

No, I wouldnt be arguing that. Thats a completely ridiculous hypothetical. You cant eliminate all risk in all situations. In an emergency situation you address the highest threat level first, then work your way down. The "tree falling on someone" threat level during a flood evacuation is not a threat of concern when talking safety for 700+ children.

Fdsa said:

---

The canoe argument is ridiculous...we're not in Houston folks.

River elevation: 1820 ft
Canoes: just off the river, say 1825 ft
Highest height of the water that day: 1858 ft

---

I completely agree. Just like in medical malpractice it is all about standard of care. When a situation occurs were the procedures in place and was the situation handled like a reasonable camp owner would have done. Has nothing to do with integrity, ethics, faith, past good deeds, etc. Docs and camp owners are judged simply on their reaction to the event that happened. Whether it was the rarest medical case known to man or an unprecedented natural event.
Obviously I believe Mystic and the Eastlands did not meet that standard of care. Many on here disagree. All up to the jury.

Ogre09 said:

---

Alta said:

---

The end result of the lawsuits is there will be no more camps along the Guadalupe River. Might not happen tomorrow or in 5 years but camping in that area is not going to be available to our grandkids. I know others disagree but I find that unfortunate.

---

That's the only way to make sure no kids ever die at summer camps on the Guadalupe River again. Close them all.

That's not what the goal should be. We shouldn't go through life seeking 0 risk. That's not living. This may sound insensitive, but sometimes bad things happen.

How many kids die in car wrecks every year? Should we all stop driving cars? How many kids drown in swimming pools every year? Should we drain and fill in all the pools?

---

Sorry but this argument is nonsensical and extremely hyperbolic. Nobody is saying to close down all the camps. Nobody is saying fatal accidents don't happen.
That's not at all what this is about. Just like in med mail (and I reviewed cases for both sides and won a lawsuit the only time I was sued) it is all about standard of care. Did the Eastlands have reasonable plans and procedures in place? Did they react in a reasonable way and similarly to how other camp owners would have reacted in the same event?
And it does not matter if it is an unprecedented event or the rarest medical case ever. Did you meet the standard of care?
You pay docs and camps to provide that standard of care. Owning a camp or being a doc means you accept liability which is why you have insurance. Totally different than building on a flood plane, a beach house, driving a car, your dock flooding, etc. Totally different level of assumed liability.
If I screw up on a once in a lifetime case I can not argue that since it was an unprecedented case then I have some kind of immunity.
And that does not disparage the good the Eastlands have done or their integrity. It is all about standard of care. And a jury has to decide that.

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

---

I know some smart folks in that area. Every single one of them was caught off guard. Some had more danger than others, but the words I get out of them is no one saw this coming.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

---

Apples to oranges as far as legal liability goes. Nobody is paying you to protect kids or perform a medical procedure. It is a hard concept unless you have been involved in the judicial system.

John Cocktolstoy said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

---

I know some smart folks in that area. Every single one of them was caught off guard. Some had more danger than others, but the words I get out of them is no one saw this coming.

---

Legally, does not matter unless they are camp owners with the same assumed liability.

austinag1997 said:

---

I think my issue are the actions to protect equipment (canoes etc.), prior to child safety. If the Eastlands believed water would rise high enough to float those, wouldn't the first order of business be to move the campers to higher ground first?

Canoes are easily replaceable.

I get the weather was crappy. Lightning. But somebody is outside moving equipment.

---

Moving the canoes is what I would be bringing up in court if I was on the defense of the Eastmans or whoever.

Even if these people are the coldest hearted psychopaths who only care about money, the kids are more valuable assets than the canoes. The fact that they were out there moving the canoes in the lightning and rain shows they were not sitting up on the top of a hill in a mansion saying screw the cabins, I'm not going out in this weather.

They clearly thought the kids were high enough and safe. Overwise they absolutely would have moved the kids before the canoes. It wound up being the wrong decision but it shows their motives.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

---

Apples to oranges as far as legal liability goes. Nobody is paying you to protect kids or perform a medical procedure. It is a hard concept unless you have been involved in the judicial system.

---

I get that. I just see myself failing running that camp too.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

---

Apples to oranges as far as legal liability goes. Nobody is paying you to protect kids or perform a medical procedure. It is a hard concept unless you have been involved in the judicial system.

---

I could go on and on about my issues with the judicial system. My issues don't apply in this case, however. I have spent a small fortune in the jusicial system to date.

Closest I ever came to being sued was in college, got ran over in a parking lot. Girl told her dad I would not exchange insurance. He kept leaving me messages on answering machine to send insurance info or he would sue. Finally called him and explained his daughter ran me over while I was walking. He was very apologetic and said he should have known something was up with the damage to the car but believed his daughter.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

---

Apples to oranges as far as legal liability goes. Nobody is paying you to protect kids or perform a medical procedure. It is a hard concept unless you have been involved in the judicial system.

---

I get that. I just see myself failing running that camp too.

---

I agree as I would never assume that liability. But just like with every profession you choose, there is assumed liability. And standard of care has to be evaluated from other camp owners. Just like docs standard of care is determined by other docs.
Regular lay people do not count.

austinag1997 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

---

Apples to oranges as far as legal liability goes. Nobody is paying you to protect kids or perform a medical procedure. It is a hard concept unless you have been involved in the judicial system.

---

I could go on and on about my issues with the judicial system. My issues don't apply in this case, however. I have spent a small fortune in the jusicial system to date.

---

I agree. But it is what it is. I spent a ton of money the one time I was sued and "won". I believe most posters on here do not understand how it works. Especially the concept of assumed liability.

I think it has more to do with many of us not agreeing with it.

Is assumed liability the correct term here? Or Duty of Care? Assumed liability maybe if they hired a bus company, and that company had an accident.

AustinCountyAg said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

So if they had moved the girls to the higher ground of the dining hall and that got washed away, would you be arguing they should have gone higher? What would have been high enough for you to say they did all they could reasonably do? If they moved the girls, no cabins got flooded, but a tree fell and killed someone during the evacuation, would you be arguing they shouldn't have evacuated?

---

"high enough" is to the highest structure on site.

No, I wouldnt be arguing that. Thats a completely ridiculous hypothetical. You cant eliminate all risk in all situations. In an emergency situation you address the highest threat level first, then work your way down. The "tree falling on someone" threat level during a flood evacuation is not a threat of concern when talking safety for 700+ children.

---

I appreciate that your argument does have a stopping point.

As far as danger caused by an evacuation, the tree was just an example. There's a whole host of issues that evacuation brings, that being just one. And if there is evidence that the camps should have known the cabins were in danger, I'm all ears, but sheltering in place had worked for years. As far as I am aware, there was little reason to assume that the plan would not continue to work and when coupled with the risks inherent to evacuation, I'm not sure it was such an obvious decision.

Fdsa said:

---

Is assumed liability the correct term here? Or Duty of Care? Assumed liability maybe if they hired a bus company, and that company had an accident.

---

Not sure. Probably duty of care. In fact, I think that is what my nephew told me. Similar concept. I was thinking of my experience with Med mal.

CactusThomas said:

---

austinag1997 said:

---

I think my issue are the actions to protect equipment (canoes etc.), prior to child safety. If the Eastlands believed water would rise high enough to float those, wouldn't the first order of business be to move the campers to higher ground first?

Canoes are easily replaceable.

I get the weather was crappy. Lightning. But somebody is outside moving equipment.

---

Moving the canoes is what I would be bringing up in court if I was on the defense of the Eastmans or whoever.

Even if these people are the coldest hearted psychopaths who only care about money, the kids are more valuable assets than the canoes. The fact that they were out there moving the canoes in the lightning and rain shows they were not sitting up on the top of a hill in a mansion saying screw the cabins, I'm not going out in this weather.

They clearly thought the kids were high enough and safe. Overwise they absolutely would have moved the kids before the canoes. It wound up being the wrong decision but it shows their motives.

---

I agree. They had no idea what was about to hit them. If Dick knew that he was moments away from being swept away, he certainly wasn't going to say. "Hey Edward, let's go move the canoes one last time for old times' sake. Y'all are going to want those canoes when I'm gone." I would be interested to see where they moved them to. Guarantee you it wasn't above the cabins that were swept away. The CANOE CROWD keeps implying the canoes were all saved.

Fdsa said:

---

CactusThomas said:

---

austinag1997 said:

---

I think my issue are the actions to protect equipment (canoes etc.), prior to child safety. If the Eastlands believed water would rise high enough to float those, wouldn't the first order of business be to move the campers to higher ground first?

Canoes are easily replaceable.

I get the weather was crappy. Lightning. But somebody is outside moving equipment.

---

Moving the canoes is what I would be bringing up in court if I was on the defense of the Eastmans or whoever.

Even if these people are the coldest hearted psychopaths who only care about money, the kids are more valuable assets than the canoes. The fact that they were out there moving the canoes in the lightning and rain shows they were not sitting up on the top of a hill in a mansion saying screw the cabins, I'm not going out in this weather.

They clearly thought the kids were high enough and safe. Overwise they absolutely would have moved the kids before the canoes. It wound up being the wrong decision but it shows their motives.

---

I agree. They had no idea what was about to hit them. If Dick knew that he was moments away from being swept away, he certainly wasn't going to say. "Hey Edward, let's go move the canoes one last time for old times' sake. Y'all are going to want those canoes when I'm gone." I would be interested to see where they moved them to. Guarantee you it wasn't above the cabins that were swept away. The CANOE CROWD keeps implying the canoes were all saved.

---

With all due respect, the timeline says it was not "moments". That keeps being repeated on here erroneously. I believe it will be proven there was plenty of time to evacuate all the campers.

I'm sure this has been stated previously in this or another thread on this situation, but had any of the camp facilities ever flooded in a previous flood event or had evacuation of campers ever been necessary in a previous flood event?

Quote:

---

With all due respect, the timeline says it was not "moments". That keeps being repeated on here erroneously. I believe it will be proven there was plenty of time to evacuate all the campers.

---

Yeah, 75 minutes was what the family said. National Weather Service upped the warning to "life threatening" at 1:14 AM and the evac was not called until 2:30 and only when the water was on top of them.

Quote:

---

I'm sure this has been stated previously in this or another thread on this situation, but had any of the camp facilities ever flooded in a previous flood event or had evacuation of campers ever been necessary in a previous flood event?

---

Yes,

Multiple times.

I think many on here would have different views if they tried to be objective and looked at the actual facts, including the timing of the rising water and actions and inactions taken during those minutes and hours.

Also, I don't necessarily think building and housing the campers in the flood plain was negligence. But having knowledge of the flooding potential, was there a reasonable evacuation/response plan in place in the event of bad river flooding? I think the answer to that question is no.

Finally, I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not as I haven't read every reply, but there are lawyers on both sides who are doing this pro bono.

dermdoc said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

CactusThomas said:

---

austinag1997 said:

---

I think my issue are the actions to protect equipment (canoes etc.), prior to child safety. If the Eastlands believed water would rise high enough to float those, wouldn't the first order of business be to move the campers to higher ground first?

Canoes are easily replaceable.

I get the weather was crappy. Lightning. But somebody is outside moving equipment.

---

Moving the canoes is what I would be bringing up in court if I was on the defense of the Eastmans or whoever.

Even if these people are the coldest hearted psychopaths who only care about money, the kids are more valuable assets than the canoes. The fact that they were out there moving the canoes in the lightning and rain shows they were not sitting up on the top of a hill in a mansion saying screw the cabins, I'm not going out in this weather.

They clearly thought the kids were high enough and safe. Overwise they absolutely would have moved the kids before the canoes. It wound up being the wrong decision but it shows their motives.

---

I agree. They had no idea what was about to hit them. If Dick knew that he was moments away from being swept away, he certainly wasn't going to say. "Hey Edward, let's go move the canoes one last time for old times' sake. Y'all are going to want those canoes when I'm gone." I would be interested to see where they moved them to. Guarantee you it wasn't above the cabins that were swept away. The CANOE CROWD keeps implying the canoes were all saved.

---

With all due respect, the timeline says it was not "moments". That keeps being repeated on here erroneously. I believe it will be proven there was plenty of time to evacuate all the campers.

---

I agree with that and I used the wrong term to represent the timeline. They discussed and moved canoes at approximately 1:45 am...next definitive part of the timeline was at 2:21 when Edward sent a text about Bubble Gum Creek being high...they were still in observation mode.

Point being, the moving of the canoes meant nothing. Had they decided to evacuate everyone at 2:21, there was still plenty of time. They started evacuating at 3 am...obviously too late.

I agree that the moving of the canoes means nothing. Any reasonable person would have done the same.

MAS444 said:

---

I think many on here would have different views if they tried to be objective and looked at the actual facts, including the timing of the rising water and actions and inactions taken during those minutes and hours.

Also, I don't necessarily think building and housing the campers in the flood plain was negligence. But having knowledge of the flooding potential, was there a reasonable evacuation/response plan in place in the event of bad river flooding? I think the answer to that question is no.

Finally, I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not as I haven't read every reply, but there are lawyers on both sides who are doing this pro bono.

---

I am not surprised. Plaintiff and defense attorneys are close friends of the families and the Eastlands.

MAS444 said:

---

I think many on here would have different views if they tried to be objective and looked at the actual facts, including the timing of the rising water and actions and inactions taken during those minutes and hours.

Also, I don't necessarily think building and housing the campers in the flood plain was negligence. But having knowledge of the flooding potential, was there a reasonable evacuation/response plan in place in the event of bad river flooding? I think the answer to that question is no.

Finally, I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not as I haven't read every reply, but there are lawyers on both sides who are doing this pro bono.

---

This is correct. On the plaintiff side, I believe Yetter Coleman for the Childress et al. lawsuit is working for free, as is Mike Watts on behalf of the Eastlands.

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

MAS444 said:

---

I think many on here would have different views if they tried to be objective and looked at the actual facts, including the timing of the rising water and actions and inactions taken during those minutes and hours.

Also, I don't necessarily think building and housing the campers in the flood plain was negligence. But having knowledge of the flooding potential, was there a reasonable evacuation/response plan in place in the event of bad river flooding? I think the answer to that question is no.

Finally, I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not as I haven't read every reply, but there are lawyers on both sides who are doing this pro bono.

---

This is correct. On the plaintiff side, I believe Yetter Coleman for the Childress et al. lawsuit is working for free, as is Mike Watts on behalf of the Eastlands.

---

The Childress's are long time friends of ours.

But this will be Watts first defense. Not sure how promising that will be.

That's not exactly true - first PI defense maybe. Mikal succesfully defended himself in a federal criminal trial when it seemed the deck was stacked againt him. I believe he's also been on both sides of commercial litigation cases. Even if so, Mikal is a brilliant trial lawyer - he'd do great on either side of the v in any litigation (and I'm saying that as someone whose not a fan of his side of things here).

MAS444 said:

---

That's not exactly true - first PI defense maybe. Mikal successfully defended himself in a federal criminal trial when it seemed the deck was stacked against him. I believe he's also been on both sides of commercial litigation cases. Even if so, Mikal is a brilliant trial lawyer - he'd do great on either side of the v in any litigation (and I'm saying that as someone whose not a fan of his side of things here).

---

If you watched any of the TI hearing last week, you can see that however good he is, Watts is working against a stacked deck of (i) a near perfect lawyer in Brad Beckworth and (ii) some incompetent clients in the Eastlands.

I was astounded at how ill-prepared they seemed to be.

dermdoc said:

---

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

MAS444 said:

---

I think many on here would have different views if they tried to be objective and looked at the actual facts, including the timing of the rising water and actions and inactions taken during those minutes and hours.

Also, I don't necessarily think building and housing the campers in the flood plain was negligence. But having knowledge of the flooding potential, was there a reasonable evacuation/response plan in place in the event of bad river flooding? I think the answer to that question is no.

Finally, I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not as I haven't read every reply, but there are lawyers on both sides who are doing this pro bono.

---

This is correct. On the plaintiff side, I believe Yetter Coleman for the Childress et al. lawsuit is working for free, as is Mike Watts on behalf of the Eastlands.

---

The Childress's are long time friends of ours.

---

I pray he is doing okay...as best as that can be. Of all the dad's he seems to be the most vocal in expressing his grief. Maybe that's a good thing.

Beckworth is great and was great at the TI hearing. And I agree with you on the Eastlands performance. But again, that has as much to do with the facts as anything...imo. Watts is one of the best, but can't change his facts (or clients).

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

MAS444 said:

---

I think many on here would have different views if they tried to be objective and looked at the actual facts, including the timing of the rising water and actions and inactions taken during those minutes and hours.

Also, I don't necessarily think building and housing the campers in the flood plain was negligence. But having knowledge of the flooding potential, was there a reasonable evacuation/response plan in place in the event of bad river flooding? I think the answer to that question is no.

Finally, I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not as I haven't read every reply, but there are lawyers on both sides who are doing this pro bono.

---

This is correct. On the plaintiff side, I believe Yetter Coleman for the Childress et al. lawsuit is working for free, as is Mike Watts on behalf of the Eastlands.

---

The Childress's are long time friends of ours.

---

I pray he is doing okay...as best as that can be. Of all the dad's he seems to be the most vocal in expressing his grief. Maybe that's a good thing.

---

Yep. We are actually friends of his dad and mom. Tough deal. And I was also shocked at how ill prepared the Eastlands were. And the facts are pretty damning for the Eastlands in my opinion. The idea that there was this sudden wall of water and nothing could be done is patently false. And I believe two counselors went to Dick Eastland three times saying they needed to evacuate and he told them to stay put.. Chloe Childress obeyed Dick and died. The other "counselor disobeyed Dick, evacuated the cabin and she and all of the campers in her cabin lived.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

I think most on here just believe that no one on earth can provide the standard of care that they themselves provide for their children. And speaking for myself, I believe if I rented a cabin on the river that weekend with my family, the outcome would be the same. No one cares about my children more than me, and I see myself failing to Mother Nature here.

---

Apples to oranges as far as legal liability goes. Nobody is paying you to protect kids or perform a medical procedure. It is a hard concept unless you have been involved in the judicial system.

---

I get that. I just see myself failing running that camp too.

---

I agree as I would never assume that liability. But just like with every profession you choose, there is assumed liability. And standard of care has to be evaluated from other camp owners. Just like docs standard of care is determined by other docs.
Regular lay people do not count.

---

They do in a jury pool. Hamburger flippers may be on the jury.