I just don't see how these camps can carry liability insurance after what happened at Mystic.

CollieLover1138 said:

---

I just don't see how these camps can carry liability insurance after what happened at Mystic.

---

Oh Camp Mystic itself is out of business. The property was quite valuable, and even after what happened I'm sure it still is. They are going to get sued into oblivion, and will have no choice but to sell the property. And yes, even outside of that no way they could get insurance.

Camp Mystic does not own the property.

Not sure if this is paywalled or not, but this is the firsthand account of one family. The locations sounds close to Camp Mystic near Hunt.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-flood-firsthand-account/

edit - I should probably add some context. This is a very gripping first-person account who was with his extended family in a cabin when it started floating down the river. It documents heroic bravery and survival, but it also details the death of a small child.

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

I posted a different TM article about this a few days ago. There was a complicated arrangement for decades where the family owned the property via NFP. of which Tweety and Dick were shareholders. Tweety and Dick in turn ran the camp as a separate entity and paid rent to NFP. One reason for this arrangement was to indemnify the rest of family while Tweety and Dick assumed the liability.

About fifteen years ago, there was a big family argument about the rent that wound up in court. The settlement wasn't covered in the article, but I believe Tweety and Dick wound up buying out the rest of the family. I assume that meant they were in control of NFP, but I am unsure.

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

Lawsuits against the camp itself are almost inevitable and gross negligence or something will be levied at the camp for not having a better emergency plan and failing to protect kids.

But how are you going to sue the entity that owns the land? What will you claim the landowners should have done? Had a personal moat or dam?

Quote:

---

Not everything is someone's fault.

---

I agree with that. Unfortunately many lawyers do not.

I do feel like Mo-Ranch is going to burst the "nobody could have known" bubble.

Didn't the state also review their emergency plan in the days/weeks before?

I read on one of these TexAgs threads that another camp had evacuated their cabins to higher ground earlier in the evening.

The mods have made this thread safe for discussion of what happened and the possibility of future legal action. If you aren't comfortable reading that stuff, which is 100% understandable for people close to the tragedy, I'd ignore this thread for now.

CollieLover1138 said:

---

I just don't see how these camps can carry liability insurance after what happened at Mystic.

---

It will be difficult. At a minimum, the cost of insurance - and camp - will go up for those that manage to survive.

Just a terrible tragedy all the way around.

They won't even try.

Sometimes experiencing life and taking in beautiful nature is worth the 1/1,000,000,000 chance of a disaster.

The choking hazard we all call dinner tonight was more dangerous.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

Lawsuits against the camp itself are almost inevitable and gross negligence or something will be levied at the camp for not having a better emergency plan and failing to protect kids.

But how are you going to sue the entity that owns the land? What will you claim the landowners should have done? Had a personal moat or dam?

---

I've never been in this situation, so I really don't know. But my understanding is the camp Mystic owner has basically lost her livelihood and her husband who was trying to save more lives. I think she's been punished enough.

Not everything is someone's fault.

---

Completely agree.

Just saying that you can claim the Camp should've done this or that.

But the landowner entity can't prevent a flash flood in the hill country and isn't responsible for the camp's emergency plan. Unless the landowning entity did something like build a road which made the flooding far worse or something then I don't see how they could have any liability.

Serotonin said:

---

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

Lawsuits against the camp itself are almost inevitable and gross negligence or something will be levied at the camp for not having a better emergency plan and failing to protect kids.

But how are you going to sue the entity that owns the land? What will you claim the landowners should have done? Had a personal moat or dam?

---

My thinking was that the property owner shouldn't have allowed buildings to be constructed/remain standing in a known flood plain. A Mystic alum recounts being in Bumble during the 1980s flood.

roo333 said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

Lawsuits against the camp itself are almost inevitable and gross negligence or something will be levied at the camp for not having a better emergency plan and failing to protect kids.

But how are you going to sue the entity that owns the land? What will you claim the landowners should have done? Had a personal moat or dam?

---

My thinking was that the property owner shouldn't have allowed buildings to be constructed/remain standing in a known flood plain. A Mystic alum recounts being in Bumble during the 1980s flood.

---

It's not illegal to have a structure in a flood zone. Texas allows it. Otherwise 1/3 of Houston homes would need to be destroyed.

You just have to pay higher insurance rate and have a plan in case it does flood.

Serotonin said:

---

roo333 said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

Lawsuits against the camp itself are almost inevitable and gross negligence or something will be levied at the camp for not having a better emergency plan and failing to protect kids.

But how are you going to sue the entity that owns the land? What will you claim the landowners should have done? Had a personal moat or dam?

---

My thinking was that the property owner shouldn't have allowed buildings to be constructed/remain standing in a known flood plain. A Mystic alum recounts being in Bumble during the 1980s flood.

---

It's not illegal to have a structure in a flood zone. Texas allows it. Otherwise 1/3 of Houston homes would need to be destroyed.

You just have to pay higher insurance rate and have a plan in case it does flood.

---

Got it. Thank you.

Nowadays if you want to build in a flood zone, I believe you have to be 2 feet above the 500 year flood plain.

I'm sure there will be lawsuits. It's just such an awful thing to have to reexperience.

Phat32 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Not sure if this is paywalled or not, but this is the firsthand account of one family. The locations sounds close to Camp Mystic near Hunt.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-flood-firsthand-account/

---

Good night that's a tough read.

---

That is gut wrenching. Absolutely gut wrenching.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Nowadays if you want to build in a flood zone, I believe you have to be 2 feet above the 500 year flood plain.

I'm sure there will be lawsuits. It's just such an awful thing to have to reexperience.

---

I think that's true in some parts of Houston, or they were at least pushing for it. For everywhere else it's 100 year.

These gauge readings (it broke after the top one) are absolutely nuts for the Guadalupe gauge in Hunt. The normal reading is 7.5.8.5 feet, putting it 30 feet over normal with a flow rate of 120,000cfs vs 6cfs normally.

ChatGPT had some interesting analysis when I posed some of the questions debated on this thread:

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Here's the nuance (not so nuanced for most, but apparently for a few): Yes, enjoying the natural beauty this earth offers often involves risk, as do many/most activities in this life; HOWEVER, in this situation to rebuild and reopen camps, it is going to involve parents deciding they are good to pay thousands of dollars to leave their kids for 1-4 weeks knowing this horrific event happened and therefore can happen again, and knowing risk assessment and decisions are largely in the hands of a few adults and a bunch of HS and college age kids. If they rebuild at all, doing anything other than building well above where this water reached is an unviable business plan.

---

Camp Mystic has one of the strongest networks around and many powerful families and women who attended. It was a life changing experience for thousands.

Having said that I do not see how it survives a tragedy of this magnitude. I think it is done as a camp.

I also think this will impact other camps in the area near rivers and watersheds. They will continue on but will have to have failsafe systems and plans for extreme flash floods.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Nowadays if you want to build in a flood zone, I believe you have to be 2 feet above the 500 year flood plain.

I'm sure there will be lawsuits. It's just such an awful thing to have to reexperience.

---

Not necessarily true. In some cases it just changes the way you build. Many parks, sports fields etc are built in floodplains. I don't know about Houston but as another poster clarifies, it's the 100 not the 500.

Sports fields are an interesting comparison. You intentionally build them in the floodplain and then pack them with people. And I'd wager they don't clear them in all cases until right up when a flood might hit. Not at the first hint of rain.

Serotonin said:

---

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

Lawsuits against the camp itself are almost inevitable and gross negligence or something will be levied at the camp for not having a better emergency plan and failing to protect kids.

But how are you going to sue the entity that owns the land? What will you claim the landowners should have done? Had a personal moat or dam?

---

That doesn't come ANYWHERE NEAR the level of gross negligence. GN is defined by statute in Texas:

Quote:

---

TxCivPract. Rem Cd Sect 41.001

(11) "Gross negligence" means an act or omission:
(A) which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor at the time of its occurrence involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and
(B) of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

---

Courts have interpreted this to include the following:

-- there must be a STRONG LIKELIHOOD of serious injury
-- actor's conduct must be unjustifiable
-- actor had a conscious knowledge of the harm but acted in a complete disregard for the danger

None of these are even arguable. Additionally, a jury can't, by statute, award exemplary damages unless there is actual malice proven by clear and convincing evidence -- not just a preponderance of evidence. Thus, the Plaintiffs have standards/burdens of proof issues.

The tenant is the alleged tortfeasor. Unless the land owner maintained at least some control over the land, they're not a proper party. Control means, e.g., day-to-day operations of the land and improvements, not the requirement, for example, to maintain liability insurance or to keep the grounds mowed.

Serotonin said:

---

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

Lawsuits against the camp itself are almost inevitable and gross negligence or something will be levied at the camp for not having a better emergency plan and failing to protect kids.

But how are you going to sue the entity that owns the land? What will you claim the landowners should have done? Had a personal moat or dam?

---

ERRBODY gonna get sued. But this is set up like it is on purpose. It's smart business. You can sue Camp Mystic, but there will be a limit to what you can get if anything. The rest is protected. There is a reason it is set up like this to prevent people from getting greedy with lawsuits.

Serotonin said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Here's the nuance (not so nuanced for most, but apparently for a few): Yes, enjoying the natural beauty this earth offers often involves risk, as do many/most activities in this life; HOWEVER, in this situation to rebuild and reopen camps, it is going to involve parents deciding they are good to pay thousands of dollars to leave their kids for 1-4 weeks knowing this horrific event happened and therefore can happen again, and knowing risk assessment and decisions are largely in the hands of a few adults and a bunch of HS and college age kids. If they rebuild at all, doing anything other than building well above where this water reached is an unviable business plan.

---

Camp Mystic has one of the strongest networks around and many powerful families and women who attended. It was a life changing experience for thousands.

Having said that I do not see how it survives a tragedy of this magnitude. I think it is done as a camp.

I also think this will impact other camps in the area near rivers and watersheds. They will continue on but having a failsafe system and plan for extreme flash floods will be a necessity.

---

Powerful network or not, the sheer magnitude of the loss of life is overwhelming. The question isn't just can it come back, it's should it.

Depending on how closely related they are on ownership, I wouldn't bet on the land being isolated from being protected from suits. Papering things up can offer some protection, but not foolproof.

I'm sure there are different categories of buildings, too.

Outbuildings
Temporary dwellings
Single-Family Permanent dwellings
Multi-family Permanent dwellings

I may have some of the terms wrong, but you get the idea.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

roo333 said:

---

Camp Mystic leases the property from Natural Foundation Properties which owns the land. Both I think are owned by the Eastland family. Both entities will get sued most likely. Could Tweety get sued personally?

---

Lawsuits against the camp itself are almost inevitable and gross negligence or something will be levied at the camp for not having a better emergency plan and failing to protect kids.

But how are you going to sue the entity that owns the land? What will you claim the landowners should have done? Had a personal moat or dam?

---

That doesn't come ANYWHERE NEAR the level of gross negligence. GN is defined by statute in Texas:

Quote:

---

TxCivPract. Rem Cd Sect 41.001

(11) "Gross negligence" means an act or omission:
(A) which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor at the time of its occurrence involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and
(B) of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

---

Courts have interpreted this to include the following:

-- there must be a STRONG LIKELIHOOD of serious injury
-- actor's conduct must be unjustifiable
-- actor had a conscious knowledge of the harm but acted in a complete disregard for the danger

None of these are even arguable. Additionally, a jury can't, by statute, award exemplary damages unless there is actual malice proven by clear and convincing evidence -- not just a preponderance of evidence. Thus, the Plaintiffs have standards/burdens of proof issues.

The tenant is the alleged tortfeasor. Unless the land owner maintained at least some control over the land, they're not a proper party. Control means, e.g., day-to-day operations of the land and improvements, not the requirement, for example, to maintain liability insurance or to keep the grounds mowed.

---

Help me understand....I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV....

Courts have interpreted this to include the following:

-- there must be a STRONG LIKELIHOOD of serious injury <---dying seems serious. Does this not count?
-- actor's conduct must be unjustifiable <---knowing campers were in danger since inception
-- actor had a conscious knowledge of the harm but acted in a complete disregard for the danger <--- See above

Is this way crazy and wrong? Is there any chance the magnitude and sheer number of dead play some wierd out of way role here? Even if my comments are dumb, does this mean there won't be tens of people try it anyway and the camp have to pay for defense for each one?

It seems like it could be "We win, but we're broke now" kind of thing.

Hard to know, but the flood analysis and any past high water situations are going to become very important as to deciding any negligence here. And emotions will be very much in play if any of those ever ends up in a court with a jury

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Depending on how closely related they are on ownership, I wouldn't bet on the land being isolated from being protected from suits. Papering things up can offer some protection, but not foolproof.

---

The Eastland siblings (Dick, brother Stacy, and a sister whose name I can't remember) own the foundation that owns the land and the camp.