austinag1997 said:

---

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.

---

I agree. But the lawyers of each side instruct the jury on what Duty of Care is in this case. To be honest, I think this is fairly straight forward. I bet they move the case from Kerr county.

dermdoc said:

---

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.

---

Those are fairly convincing facts.

dermdoc said:

---

austinag1997 said:

---

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.

---

I agree. But the lawyers of each side instruct the jury on what Duty of Care is in this case. To be honest, I think this is fairly straight forward. I bet they move the case from Kerr county.

---

I am not certain you could find an impartial jury in Kerr County... on either side of the coin.

Quote:

---

I agree. But the lawyers of each side instruct the jury on what Duty of Care is in this case. To be honest, I think this is fairly straight forward. I bet they move the case from Kerr county.

---

Judges and the jury charge (and, in some cases, more specifically, experts) instruct the jury on what the duty of care is. Sure, the lawyers can too - but that comes from the Court (and experts, if applicable, like in a med mal case), not the lawyers.

The case is pending in front of a great Judge in Travis County - not Kerr County.

MAS444 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree. But the lawyers of each side instruct the jury on what Duty of Care is in this case. To be honest, I think this is fairly straight forward. I bet they move the case from Kerr county.

---

Judges and the jury charge (and, in some cases, more specifically, experts) instruct the jury on what the duty of care is. Sure, the lawyers can too - but that comes from the Court (and experts, if applicable, like in a med mal case), not the lawyers.

The case is pending in front of a great Judge in Travis County - not Kerr County.

---

What judge?

Guerra Gamble

MAS444 said:

---

Guerra Gamble

---

Too bad it isn't in the 201st District Court. I know nothing about Judge Gamble.

Very good judge imo. In control of her courtroom. No nonsense. Doesn't suffer fools (and/or unpreparedness).

MAS444 said:

---

Very good judge imo. In control of her courtroom. No nonsense. Doesn't suffer fools (and/or unpreparedness).

---

Good to hear.

MAS444 said:

---

Very good judge imo. In control of her courtroom. No nonsense. Doesn't suffer fools (and/or unpreparedness).

---

As a lawyer, this judge is exactly who you want on the bench handling your case. You better make damn sure you are prepared when you get in front of her.

I especially appreciated how she made clear her views on how discovery is going to be conducted over the course of the next year. Under no circumstances is she going to allow the parties to call children as live witnesses at trial; they will only be presented by deposition video/transcript. She is also not going to let the plaintiffs' lawyers all badger deponents (Eastlands and Camper/Counselor witnesses) with same same questions over and over in a deposition setting. The lawyers are expected to confer on their witness outlines, submit the questions they think they need asked, and then designate one plaintiffs' lawyer to run the deposition.

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

MAS444 said:

---

Very good judge imo. In control of her courtroom. No nonsense. Doesn't suffer fools (and/or unpreparedness).

---

As a lawyer, this judge is exactly who you want on the bench handling your case. You better make damn sure you are prepared when you get in front of her.

I especially appreciated how she made clear her views on how discovery is going to be conducted over the course of the next year. Under no circumstances is she going to allow the parties to call children as live witnesses at trial; they will only be presented by deposition video/transcript. She is also not going to let the plaintiffs' lawyers all badger deponents (Eastlands and Camper/Counselor witnesses) with same same questions over and over in a deposition setting. The lawyers are expected to confer on their witness outlines, submit the questions they think they need asked, and then designate one plaintiffs' lawyer to run the deposition.

---

Sounds great.

MAS444 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree. But the lawyers of each side instruct the jury on what Duty of Care is in this case. To be honest, I think this is fairly straight forward. I bet they move the case from Kerr county.

---

Judges and the jury charge (and, in some cases, more specifically, experts) instruct the jury on what the duty of care is. Sure, the lawyers can too - but that comes from the Court (and experts, if applicable, like in a med mal case), not the lawyers.

The case is pending in front of a great Judge in Travis County - not Kerr County.

---

Thanks for the clarification. I only testified in court as an expert and the cases settled before jury instructions.

And every side I testified on won. As I did on my own case.

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

MAS444 said:

---

Very good judge imo. In control of her courtroom. No nonsense. Doesn't suffer fools (and/or unpreparedness).

---

As a lawyer, this judge is exactly who you want on the bench handling your case. You better make damn sure you are prepared when you get in front of her.

I especially appreciated how she made clear her views on how discovery is going to be conducted over the course of the next year. Under no circumstances is she going to allow the parties to call children as live witnesses at trial; they will only be presented by deposition video/transcript. She is also not going to let the plaintiffs' lawyers all badger deponents (Eastlands and Camper/Counselor witnesses) with same same questions over and over in a deposition setting. The lawyers are expected to confer on their witness outlines, submit the questions they think they need asked, and then designate one plaintiffs' lawyer to run the deposition.

---

Great!

Quit spewing lies! They moved 6 cabins worth of girls to higher ground.

raidernarizona said:

---

Quit spewing lies! They moved 6 cabins worth of girls to higher ground.

---

Fair enough. The facts and truth will trump everything.

With all due respect, derm, have you stepped foot on the grounds? Evacuate to where?! If you were the General, where do you take those 100 girls?

Higher, dry ground was a very short distance away. One of the counselors evacuated her cabin to it even though they were told to stay put - the water kept rising, she made the decision, and they didn't have to go far at all to reach safety. But no communication other than being shouted at earlier to stay put doomed the others. Had they been able to communicate more effectively, it seems likely that they could have saved all of those cabins. But they had gone all in on staying put and didn't/couldn't communicate an alternative as the situation degraded. Nothing from the loudspeakers and those walkie-talkies referred to in the emergency plan were nonexistent

Evacuate to higher ground. I've never been to Mystic but have hunted the area and around different hill country rivers for 50 years. Currently on the Llano near Castell. A common conversation on Every Tx River area ranch and others state wide I've ever been on is what was the historic flood in the area. The 75 year old rancher on the Llano can immediately tell me about the historic floods he remembers and those his Dad and grandfather told him about. Our river hunting cabin was even raised after a 80s flood on the Llano. Same with our former Bandera Co ranch. I remember my grandfather asking the neighbor about the historic flood he had seen on the ranch as one of the first questions in 1979. Same on my SE Tx properties. We know the high water marks and past flood histories passed down generations. Same along the coast where I've helped friends whose ranches were swamped by the gulf of America after Hurricane surges. The landowners know the flood possibilities and where the flood water stopped.

My point is that the Mystic property had been in their family for generations and about a hundred years iirc. The owners and/ or their previous family members also knew all of their neighbors and had heard the flood history passed down generations. Nobody knew the history better than the current owners of that land they own.

With the camp sessions making a reported 5 million plus per session, this had become a huge, successful business enterprise for the family. Had it been expanded too much for business reasons and gotten too big to safely evacuate? A fleet of diesel powered school buses which could get to each cabin in a heavy storm would have been ideal to have on hand to load and evacuate the " river cabins" occupants uphill. And as stated earlier in the thread, able bodied and capable men were needed that tragic night and not just a few maintenance workers, a security guard, and a couple college girls in each cabin with the children.

Terrible tragedy but imo the owners were responsible for the safety of those children and the safe operation of the camp, including contingencies and employees. They Knew the hundred year flood history plus on that property.

Good post. Here is some history of significant floods (Measuring over 43.0 ft)( there were many more floods measuring between 25-35ft) on the Guadalupe River at Spring Branch - Just upstream from where my great grandfather homesteaded the family ranch at Rebecca Creek circa 1868.

Listed flood stage data is at the Spring Branch gauge:

August 3, 1869 - 53.0 ft. - Old timers said that it was a "1000" year flood. (Our homestead on the river did not get flooded.)

August 3, 1978- 45.25 ft. - Exactly 109 years to the date from the 1869 flood.

June 22, 1997 - 45.12 ft. - Only 19 years since the 1978 flood.

July 3, 2002 - 43.75 - Only 5 years since the 1997 flood and 24 years since the 1978 flood.

Frequency of the significant floods has been historically increasing.
To think its not going to happen again....maybe even worse is foolhardy.

All those floods (1978-forward) were major news events in the hill country, San Antonio and Austin. Everybody up and down the river knew of the severity of the floods.

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

Everyone needs to go to bed tonight. On both sides of this thread. Please stop. Nothing productive happens after 10:00 PM....certainly on TexAgs.....unless you're plotting Red White & Blue Out.

---

Re-upping this. Go to bed. All of you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/24/us/camp-mystic-texas-flood-safety-license.html

"Camp Mystic, where 27 children and counselors died in catastrophic flooding last year, may be denied a license to reopen this summer after state health officials deemed the camp out of compliance with Texas health and safety requirements.

A review by the Texas Department of State Health Services, obtained by The New York Times, said the camp's emergency plans must undergo major revisions in order to receive a license to reopen. A spokesman for Camp Mystic said the camp received the notice on Thursday."

DSHS cites 11 pages of deficiencies after 9 months of Mystic "planning" to re-open.

What in the world do these people think they are doing.

They should have hired a safety consultant to advise them. Dumb if they did not. That said, they had to know that reopening this year was going to invite the government to find reasons to shut them down.

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/24/us/camp-mystic-texas-flood-safety-license.html

"Camp Mystic, where 27 children and counselors died in catastrophic flooding last year, may be denied a license to reopen this summer after state health officials deemed the camp out of compliance with Texas health and safety requirements.

A review by the Texas Department of State Health Services, obtained by The New York Times, said the camp's emergency plans must undergo major revisions in order to receive a license to reopen. A spokesman for Camp Mystic said the camp received the notice on Thursday."

DSHS cites 11 pages of deficiencies after 9 months of Mystic "planning" to re-open.

What in the world do these people think they are doing.

---

Did they plan to reopen with the same "plan" in place for how to respond to flooding? I get that they were only going to open the camp on higher ground, but if they tried to float the same plan, I am amazed they only found 11 pages of deficiencies. The current list of deficiencies is 10.5 pages longer than the plan itself.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

They should have hired a safety consultant to advise them. Dumb if they did not. That said, they had to know that reopening this year was going to invite the government to find reasons to shut them down.

---

Glen Jancke, the Aggie and former HPD cop that was working security that night, did a Houston radio interview and said his title was Director of Emergency Management.

These comments cut both ways. The State approved their plan just days before the flood last year. So, in a way, the State is overcorrecting for their own mistake in approving that plan last year.

Senator Blutarski said:

---

These comments cut both ways. The State approved their plan just days before the flood last year. So, in a way, the State is overcorrecting for their own mistake in approving that plan last year.

---

I have always wondered what exactly those previous reviews actually covered. Would be fascinated to see the inspection reports (if they exist) and any notes about the safety plan review. My sense was more that it was a presence/absence type inspection more than an adequacy review like they are doing now, because there is no way the previous plan would have been deemed adequate IMO. I am picturing it as something more like the state inspector saying "do you have a safety plan?" and Mystic saying "Yes it starts (and ends) on page X in this binder right here." State inspector *checks box on checklist*

Probably so. That "plan" was absolute garbage. Not worth the half-page it was written on, and not just the flood aspect. All of it was woefully inadequate and then they weren't even prepared to do what little they put on the page. This is why I think the flood plain debate is moot; they were completely unprepared for any real emergency.

From the WSJ article on this topic today: " A DSHS spokeswoman said that "most" Texas youth camps received deficiency letters because of new camp-safety laws spurred by last year's tragedy."

txags92 said:

---

Senator Blutarski said:

---

These comments cut both ways. The State approved their plan just days before the flood last year. So, in a way, the State is overcorrecting for their own mistake in approving that plan last year.

---

I have always wondered what exactly those previous reviews actually covered. Would be fascinated to see the inspection reports (if they exist) and any notes about the safety plan review. My sense was more that it was a presence/absence type inspection more than an adequacy review like they are doing now, because there is no way the previous plan would have been deemed adequate IMO. I am picturing it as something more like the state inspector saying "do you have a safety plan?" and Mystic saying "Yes it starts (and ends) on page X in this binder right here." State inspector *checks box on checklist*

---

So now they probably have a checklist that requires waivers in certain circumstances, and the reviewing staff is likely not empowered or trained to approve. Such is the case with much government/military bureaucracy. It will likely all get sorted out in a few years.

Senator Blutarski said:

---

From the WSJ article on this topic today: " A DSHS spokeswoman said that "most" Texas youth camps received deficiency letters because of new camp-safety laws spurred by last year's tragedy."

---

I don't know man....if your camp is the reason why every other camp in Texas is now held to a higher (and more expensive) standard.....

.....maybe try to get it right on the first time without missing some giant gaps like simply including floodplain maps in your app.

If I ran any other camp in Texas, I think I would be furious at anyone named Eastland around this time of year. Add on top of that the fact that camps, across the board, are seeing lower enrollment this summer simply as a follow-on response to what happened on July 4th.

I don't know man . . . elected officials acting like they are going to save us all. There were 90+ people downstream from Camp Mystic that tragically lost their lives that same day, and in theory had more warning time than Mystic. Did those elected officials work on fixing that at all?

Think of the millions saved by the city (state?) not installing early warning system like requested in 2017. So you got all that money to use now!

Senator Blutarski said:

---

I don't know man . . . elected officials acting like they are going to save us all. There were 90+ people downstream from Camp Mystic that tragically lost their lives that same day, and in theory had more warning time than Mystic. Did those elected officials work on fixing that at all?

---

So you're mad that a bunch of parents who lost their daughters at a summer camp that was charged with protecting them got together in a special session of the TXLeg and lobbied for changes to existing regulations? No one else that died was entrusted to a third-party charged with overseeing their well being. It's all a tragedy, but there is a difference.

I'll be the first one to say that legislation born immediately out of tragedy tends to be overreaching and lacking in nuance. Frankly, I think that can be said of a number of the provisions in SB1; treating camps with a one-size-fits-all approach.

But just remember, the reason you have this now is solely because of what happened at Mystic.

174 Camps have been sent a "notice of deficiency"

Quote:

---

A "notice of deficiency" was sent to camps this week by the Texas Department of State Health Services requiring them to revise their emergency plans before receiving a license to operate in the summer. According to the department, the letter is part of the licensing application review process, and a total of 174 camps have received such a notice from the department.

Specific to Camp Mystic, key issues noted in the letter from the state are a lack of staff responsibilities in many areas of safety procedures (including fire, medical, natural disaster and other contingencies), parent notification processes, accessibility and issues with documentation.

---

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/texas-camps-must-revise-emergency-plans-reopen

Why would you say that I'm mad? All four of my previous posts on this thread have been nothing but facts, logic, and reason, not emotion.