Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Lawyers taking advantage of people's pain. But I don't blame the victim's families at all. Can't even imagine that pain or how I'd react. I'd want my pound of flesh for sure.

The 500 year thing is pure speculation imho. That would have been in 1525. Those river canyons and all those fertile fields a good ways from the river were formed by that river over the centuries. No way of knowing accurately how many times since creation the river has done that. But I tend to believe it is a given it had done it before……and could do it again next week.
I personally feel the "100 year, 200 year, 500 year flood plane" monikers, can give people a false sense of security of where it is safe along rivers.

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

demonstrate to me first that they did an appropriate amount of preparation themselves first, before blaming others for not being responsible enough

There is always arguments about the public use of rivers and who "owns" the water. It's always strongly said that the water in those rivers " Belong to the State!"
I'm waiting for a hot shot attorney to sue the state because that "State owned water" caused that damage. If you own it then you should be responsible for the damage right? I mean you can't have it one way then not the other.
I would not be surprised.

I know what it means. Who determines the .2%? It's still a speculative numbers thing.

ts5641 said:

---

Lawyers taking advantage of people's pain. But I don't blame the victim's families at all. Can't even imagine that pain or how I'd react. I'd want my pound of flesh for sure.

---

I blame the attorneys too, but the families share some of that blame. Does not take away from my sympathy.

If you live in California near fault lines and an earthquake happens, will you sue someone because of the damage/death from that? Its an Act of God like the flooding.

What about living in the mountains and a rock slide happens? Forest fires? Tornadoes? Hurricanes? All similar events that can cause damage in no time, so who do you sue then?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Brother Shamus said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Until you need em.

---

Even then

---

Yep. Because lawyers are probably why you need a lawyer anyway.

Gunny456 said:

---

I know what it means. Who determines the .2%? It's still a speculative numbers thing.

---

Some old timer sitting on a nearby porch that says "there's no way it'll rain that much again for 500 years!"

That's good! Might be more right than we know. Regardless you made me chuckle to start my day. I appreciate it more than you can know. Have a blessed day sir.

Brother Shamus said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Until you need em.

---

Necessary evil, in my opinion…..

Rv parks insurance will settle and rv park owner will have no say in the matter. All attorneys and judges work in a collusive manner to enrich themselves.

The conspiracy theories on this thread are something else. Every attorney I know hates almost every judge and/or court they work with, at least in the metropolitan areas of the state.

YellAg2004 said:

---

I do agree that the naming conventions inherently confuse most people and give a false sense of security to people who don't understand what they actually mean and not that it will only rain that much 1x in a given 100-, 200-, or 500-year period.

---

Speaking of the naming conventions giving false security; how different would the mindset be if instead of calling it the "Hill Country" it was called "A giant plateau with canyons". It doesn't quite roll off of the tongue, but people would be more wary.

F4GIB71 said:

---

It's the 99% of lawyers who give the 1% a bad name

---

I agree. The 1% also advertise the most.

Brother Shamus said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Until you need em.

---

Same with oilfield services.

And wait until you meet the lawyers at oilfield service companies. Yeesh.

doubledog said:

---

F4GIB71 said:

---

It's the 99% of lawyers who give the 1% a bad name

---

I agree. The 1% also advertise the most.

---

You missed the joke

I'm not taking the side of the plaintiff, but this thread is full of straw men arguments. Perhaps wait for actual information about the case to make a judgement. I know I know, TexAgs is all knowing...

What load of BS. Attempted money grab is all this is. I hope the case gets thrown out. Lawsuits like this is why everything is so damn expensive. Damn lawyers and courts always trying to regulate the hell out of everyone all in the name of supposed safety. **** happens, especially with mother nature. Nothing mankind can do will control mother nature. Want to blame someone? Blame yourself for putting yourself in that situation and ignoring the many many flood warnings that went out that day and night.

Gonna be a bunch. The Camp Mystic parents have a better claim than this suit, though.

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

So the campers should have been aware? How much liability do I have when I drive to fast on an icy road? I should KNOW it's dangerous, right?

I simply disagree with most everyone on this thread. I don't want to live in a country without our legal system. These people have every right to sue, and won't get any judgment from me if that's what they choose. And the defendants have every right to defend themselves from negligence or whatever it is they're being sued for. And your peers get to decide.

I'm heartbroken for the victims' families and the property owners and camp owners. It's not like anyone wanted this tragedy. But you guys are kind of talking about both sides of the mouth. You say it's an Act of God nobody could imagine, while then stating victims share blame because they should have known it could be dangerous to camp by a river.

I personally think multiple lawsuits will be filed against Camp Mystic based on the (admittedly probably not most reliable) public info. It's a business that raked in $$millions per year (made so much money the family sued each other for their share of those million's), knew of the catastrophic possibility of flooding (they sounded the alarms with the city of Kerrville years ago), and appeared to do very little about it (worked to remove low lying sleeping quarters from FEMA flood maps).

It's an historic camp that served thousands and did it in a fun, Christian environment. That's a great thing that should be celebrated. But two things can be true at the same time.

Burdizzo said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Be prepared for a lot more, likely including some of the Camp Mystic families. Just a reality of insurance policies these days.

---

I will be shocked if Camp Mystic ever opens again.

---

I stated that on the Camp Mystic thread and a bunch of posters said they would not hesitate to send their children there when it reopens.

agracer said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Be prepared for a lot more, likely including some of the Camp Mystic families. Just a reality of insurance policies these days.

---

I will be shocked if Camp Mystic ever opens again.

---

I stated that on the Camp Mystic thread and a bunch of posters said they would not hesitate to send their children there when it reopens.

---

They're gonna be sued into oblivion and the property will have to be sold to settle all the claims.

It's inevitable.

YellAg2004 said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

The 500 year thing is pure speculation imho. That would have been in 1525. Those river canyons and all those fertile fields a good ways from the river were formed by that river over the centuries. No way of knowing accurately how many times since creation the river has done that. But I tend to believe it is a given it had done it before……and could do it again next week.
I personally feel the "100 year, 200 year, 500 year flood plane" monikers, can give people a false sense of security of where it is safe along rivers.

---

The term "500 year flood" just means that it has a 0.2% chance of happening. You could theoretically have two 500-year events in back to back months. It is EXTREMELY unlikely, but possible.

I do agree that the naming conventions inherently confuse most people and give a false sense of security to people who don't understand what they actually mean and not that it will only rain that much 1x in a given 100-, 200-, or 500-year period.

---

Actually, it's probably more likely than you think that such intense events cluster together chronologically because they're typically caused by a rare confluence of events and conditions which may persist for a short period.

Think of a lot of climatic and local weather patterns as waves instead of cycles. Some have a long wavelength and some have a shorter wavelength. They're not perfectly regular, but you can think of them as being pretty close. Anyway, those waves will constructively and destructively interfere with one another. The chance for rare, severe events happens when you have amplitude extremes caused by that interference, and those extremes are not always discrete, singular points because the waves themselves are not just their extremes, but everything in between. They're may be a local maximum or short series of maxima, but the entire constructive period around that also represents heightened risk/opportunity as well.

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

I think there will be many lawsuits unfortunately, people want to blame someone…. That was a 500 year flood.. if that's not an "act of god"…. Then what is ?

---

500 year flood or not, anyone living on a river, or in this case operating a campground, in Texas and especially in the hill country knows there is a risk of flash flooding. Their lawsuit probably states the campground did not properly mitigate that risk by having an evacuation plan or properly executing it if they did. I haven't read it yet, but that's what I some of would say. You can't predict the particulars of the actual event, but that doesn't mean you can't adequately prepare for the eventuality.

---

This. It's all about what was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances and what measures the owners of the campground/rv park//summer camp took to protect their customers. If those steps were what a reasonable owner would have done under the same or similar circumstances then there should not be any civil liability. On the other hand, if there were things a reasonable owner would have done, then there could be a breach of duty and the damages are clear.

---

500 year flood = reasonably foreseeable? I remember the Guadalupe river floods of 1998. Horrific flooding. Won't ever happen again in our lifetime.

In 2002, 4 whole years later, the flooding was so bad Canyon Lake went over the spillway. If all the "authorities" are telling you this is virtually impossible, how much liability rests with the person who trusts them?

---

Maybe I am missing something in your argument, but the answer to the question is in your own words. Two catastrophic floods within 4 years of each other, both within living memory of the owners of the various establishments. I think that is sufficient as a matter of law to say the owners had a duty to take reasonable measures to protect their campers from flash floods. The existence of a legal duty is a question that must be answered by the judge in each case.

Assuming there's a duty, then the question will be "did the owner breach that duty?" I am not saying it's a slam dunk but I think the facts that we are all aware of definitely raise a fact question sufficient to get to a jury and that's where things get interesting. A jury could find that the owners didn't breach the duty or they could say that they failed to do or not do, as the case may be, what a reasonable owner would have done in the same or similar circumstances.

The knowledge of prior extreme flood events in the area will be a key factor in determining whether the owners acted reasonably. Did they have emergency excavation information posted or conduct emergency evacuation drills? Did they have a flash flood warning and evacuation plan?

I'm not saying any of those are necessarily determinative, but these are the types of questions that a jury will be asked to answer.

Gunny456 said:

---

Our judicial system is the cause of this. There aren't "accidents" anymore. Someone "must" be at fault.
We have to put placards on the stern of our boats stating that if you stick your head by the engine exhaust and breathe it long enough you may die. Our society is no longer expected to have common sense intelligence anymore.

---

And much of our bureaucracy doesn't have any common sense. Years ago I bought an OSHA approved cleaning system for my business. Stuff to mop floors, clean counters, wash hands, etc. The hand soap was clearly labeled "AVOID CONTACT WITH SKIN." I realize I am an Aggie, but I never did figure out how they expected us to use it.