F4GIB71 said:

---

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

---

I don't think that this is true. I think it is more like 0.2% to 0.5% of lawyers that give the profession a bad name.

Probably 60% of the trial lawyers are just evil parasites that make the profession look bad. Trial lawyers are less than 1% of all lawyers. If you extrapolate that to the whole legal system, that equates to about 0.5% of all lawyers are just such asshats that it is bad for the profession. Most, for example, real estate and tax attorneys are really helpful.

No, I blame the judges. Lawsuits like this should be thrown out of court, and the plaintiffs attorneys should be smacked around hard, being forced to pay litigations costs that they are not allowed to pass on to their clients.

But, judges are often ex-trial lawyers, so the chances of that happening often are slim.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Kind of funny. I always wondered about the signs at Post Offices that said, "No Dogs Allowed Except Seeing Eye Dogs." To whom or what was that directed?

jt16 said:

---

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.

---

The image of the Eastland family varies depending on whom you ask. They were beloved by generations of families that went there, but the Texas Monthly article from years ago and the family dispute throws some shade on that image. I don't know them personally, so I don't can't say. The lawyers will project whichever image suits their argument.

All that said, some of the stories that have been put out paint a very confusing picture that morning. It doesn't sound like the campers had gotten much instruction on what to do on the event of an emergency (most school children know fire drills. The lawyers will probably hammer the camps for not doing them), and it also sounds like some of the counselors made decisions on their own that countered their training and may have actually saved lives. If it doesn't settle before going to court, that testimony will probably come out.

Fighting this lawsuit will not be cheap for the Eastland family, and insurance going forward is likely to be prohibitively expensive. I could picture the Bass family (adjacent landowners) absorbing what is Camp Mystic when the Eastland can't afford to keep it.

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.

---

I have no doubt that some families feel that way. Did anyone ask what they are willing to pay? Camp Mystic was already fairly expensive from what I heard. By they time rhe lawsuits are settled and insurance premiums are adjusted, is there any guess what it will cost in the future

Furthermore, plenty of Aggies still participate in Bonfire every year. Yet Bonfire looks significantly different than it did in 1998, and the University has zero involvement with it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Kind of funny. I always wondered about the signs at Post Offices that said, "No Dogs Allowed Except Seeing Eye Dogs." To whom or what was that directed?

---

Exactly!

Quote:

---

I think it is more like 0.2% to 0.5% of lawyers that give the profession a bad name.

---

Tell me you don't know a lot of lawyers without telling me you don't know a lot of lawyers!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Kind of funny. I always wondered about the signs at Post Offices that said, "No Dogs Allowed Except Seeing Eye Dogs." To whom or what was that directed?

---

It was directed at everyone who could read the sign!

BMX Bandit said:

---

copy of petition for those interested:

https://gvilaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Jayda-Floyd_Lawsuit.pdf

---

What about those of us that aren't!?

What are you offering US!?

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I think it is more like 0.2% to 0.5% of lawyers that give the profession a bad name.

---

Tell me you don't know a lot of lawyers without telling me you don't know a lot of lawyers!

---

It's kinda the contrary.

I am a finance guy that dealt almost exclusively with lawyers for about 75% of my career.

There are some good trial lawyers out there, but the majority of trial lawyers are swarmy.

I am also a finance guy that does a lot of transactions. The most valuable person in any investment banking transaction is usually the tax attorney, who generally can add 2% to 10% to the value of a deal all by himself / herself. Anyone that can take money away from the government and give it to asset owners or asset buyers is a hero in my book.

Quote:

---

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.

---

They can sue, and they did. But we can also discuss if it's a silly lawsuit or not.

What responsibility do the people who willingly stay at the RV park assume?

If it's a known flood alley, and floods happen all the time in central texas, and it wasnt unexpected....as you say....shouldnt they have determined what type of weather might be expected, or what type of warning system the area had?

I mean...if it's expected, and they chose to stay there, dont they need to do some due diligence?

Kidding aside, you knowing good reputable lawyers doesn't remotely suggest that the "bad apples" are an outlier.

In my experience, they far outweigh the good!

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

They can sue, and they did. But we can also discuss if it's a silly lawsuit or not.

What responsibility do the people who willingly stay at the RV park assume?

If it's a known flood alley, and floods happen all the time in central texas, and it wasnt unexpected....as you say....shouldnt they have determined what type of weather might be expected, or what type of warning system the area had?

I mean...if it's expected, and they chose to stay there, dont they need to do some due diligence?

---

To be clear, you think it's the consumers job to diligence all the risks and mitigation plans? What if they drove in from Florida, should they have known an area commonly known as "the hill country" is also prone to flash floods? Does a business take on any responsibility to understand and mitigate risks?

Brother Shamus said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Until you need em.

---

If it wasn't for them you wouldn't need them...

The risks one takes of their own free will in camping near a River are evident and implicit. There is no duty on anyone else to be aware of weather or of the potential results of it. Every Mr really competent adult human being should understand that camping near a river carries sone small and voluntary risk of flooding consequences.

Quote:

---

To be clear, you think it's the consumers job to diligence all the risks and mitigation plans? What if they drove in from Florida, should they have known an area commonly known as "the hill country" is also prone to flash floods? Does a business take on any responsibility to understand and mitigate risks?

---

I asking the question, I'm not making a statement.

But I will say, I've avoided cruises and/or going to the Caribbean islands during certain times of the year, because it's well known and expected that there are hurricanes and tropical storms.

If I saw one in the forecast, would I have borne any responsibility for going anyway?

And yes, I'd agree that a business should bear some responsibility for mitigating expected risks. Is a 500 year flood expected?

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?

---

Then there was 2015

Queso1 said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Somebody wanted to sue. The law still exists. Lawyers are just practicing their profession and recover whatever is just compensation for their client.

I'm an attorney and I'd like to think that I've helped out a lot of people. I certainly can't say I do it for the money. But, I employ members of my community and I offer counsel and advice to clients. My clients are happy to use my services. I don't solicit clients. I'd say most attorneys are like me. What makes us a blight?

---

When y'all dress up like Atticus Finch.

That's so ghey.

Gunny456 said:

---

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.

---

You still coming down this way?

AgGrad99 said:

---

And yes, I'd agree that a business should bear some responsibility for mitigating expected risks. Is a 500 year flood expected?

---

Well, yes. Every 500 yrs.


It's in the name.

YellAg2004 said:

---

The bigger issue (and lawyers are absolutely responsible for helping perpetuate this) is society's complete and total removal of personal responsibility. In what world should you need a warning that camping by a river is dangerous because it might flood? Hell, they could post a sign that states "Camping by this river is dangerous! It might flood and you might drown" and they'd still get sued because they didn't post it in Spanish, too.

---

while I agree with this for adults, if you're wanting to apply this to the camp mystic girls then it is way off. The law suits that are coming against them are 1000% justified by their lack of preparedness and the other factors I dont want to get in to.

Quote:

---

Fighting this lawsuit will not be cheap for the Eastland family, and insurance going forward is likely to be prohibitively expensive

---

their insurer will pick up the costs of the lawsuit. moving forward, this property may be essentially uninsurable unless massive changes are made on flood prevention/warning etc. I'm not saying any of those things would have made any difference, but those are the sorts of changes an insurer will want before underwriting.

stranger things have happened, but i'd be extremely surprised if camp mystic is ever back in business.

AustinCountyAg said:

---

YellAg2004 said:

---

The bigger issue (and lawyers are absolutely responsible for helping perpetuate this) is society's complete and total removal of personal responsibility. In what world should you need a warning that camping by a river is dangerous because it might flood? Hell, they could post a sign that states "Camping by this river is dangerous! It might flood and you might drown" and they'd still get sued because they didn't post it in Spanish, too.

---

while I agree with this for adults, if you're wanting to apply this to the camp mystic girls then it is way off. The law suits that are coming against them are 1000% justified by their lack of preparedness and the other factors I dont want to get in to.

---

False

BigRobSA said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

copy of petition for those interested:

https://gvilaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Jayda-Floyd_Lawsuit.pdf

---

What about those of us that aren't!?

What are you offering US!?

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I asking the question, I'm not making a statement.

But I will say, I've avoided cruises and/or going to the Caribbean islands during certain times of the year, because it's well known and expected that there are hurricanes and tropical storms.

If I saw one in the forecast, would I have borne any responsibility for going anyway?

---

If you're trip was diverted or cancelled then that's an inconvenience that in my opinion a reasonable person should know exists. If the cruise ship sailed through the hurricane and people got hurt, should a reasonable person expect that might happen also? I personally wouldn't think so.

You're arguing that someone that spent one weekend out of their lives in the Hill Country has the same duty to assess a risk as a business whose entire livelihood depends on the river. I personally expect that business to know more about risk and mitigation then someone spending one weekend. But that's why courts exist. And then 12 people will decide who should have reasonably known what, and if there was anything they could have done about it. Maybe the answer is no.

I think the responsibility of a children's camp is very different than a public campground. I would not compare the two. Doc has good points.

F4GIB71 said:

---

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

---

Now that's funny right there now...

We have a billboard up 281 from SA that was put up by a local PI attorney. It says something to the effect of them putting $1 billion in the pockets of their clients in the last 4 years . What it doesn't say is that they put $900 million in their own pocket..... PLUS expenses

CorpsTerd04 said:

---

I think the responsibility of a children's camp is very different than a public campground. I would not compare the two. Doc has good points.

---

I thought it was a privately owned campground, but maybe I'm wrong there.

Edited to add, it is a privately owned campground. This is part of the point. People need to stop thinking of these as a children's camp or a campground. They're both businesses first and foremost. Once you understand that, then maybe the goaltending will change.

BigRobSA said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

And yes, I'd agree that a business should bear some responsibility for mitigating expected risks. Is a 500 year flood expected?

---

Well, yes. Every 500 yrs.


It's in the name.

---

Actually there are court records I believe that say the camps had been told it had been changed to a 100 year flood then to a 50 year flood not long ago.

Wife and i were driving to SA that day to take the kids to sea world. My phone was blowing up with flood notifications and warming. Problem is, victimhood, everyone wants to blame someone other than themselves.

I'm sure these same people in the rv park *****ed and moaned to get the closest spot to the water. Besides, even with all the flood and rainfall warning would they have left? Prepping to move an rv takes hours.

As for camp mystic, i would say, they're screwed.

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Wife and i were driving to SA that day to take the kids to sea world. My phone was blowing up with flood notifications and warming. Problem is, victimhood, everyone wants to blame someone other than themselves.

I'm sure these same people in the rv park *****ed and moaned to get the closest spot to the water. Besides, even with all the flood and rainfall warning would they have left? Prepping to move an rv takes hours.

As for camp mystic, i would say, they're screwed.

---

I generally agree on the victimhood deal. I think this was willful negligence. Totally different.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

YellAg2004 said:

---

The bigger issue (and lawyers are absolutely responsible for helping perpetuate this) is society's complete and total removal of personal responsibility. In what world should you need a warning that camping by a river is dangerous because it might flood? Hell, they could post a sign that states "Camping by this river is dangerous! It might flood and you might drown" and they'd still get sued because they didn't post it in Spanish, too.

---

while I agree with this for adults, if you're wanting to apply this to the camp mystic girls then it is way off. The law suits that are coming against them are 1000% justified by their lack of preparedness and the other factors I dont want to get in to.

---

False

---

whats false?

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

YellAg2004 said:

---

The bigger issue (and lawyers are absolutely responsible for helping perpetuate this) is society's complete and total removal of personal responsibility. In what world should you need a warning that camping by a river is dangerous because it might flood? Hell, they could post a sign that states "Camping by this river is dangerous! It might flood and you might drown" and they'd still get sued because they didn't post it in Spanish, too.

---

while I agree with this for adults, if you're wanting to apply this to the camp mystic girls then it is way off. The law suits that are coming against them are 1000% justified by their lack of preparedness and the other factors I dont want to get in to.

---

False

---

Look I despise trial lawyers and the victimhood mentality so present today.

And I am privy to facts you are not.

But I believe there was not just negligence but willful negligence. And that you are wrong.

dermdoc said:

---

CorpsTerd04 said:

---

I think the responsibility of a children's camp is very different than a public campground. I would not compare the two. Doc has good points.

---

In my opinion after hearing the facts, there was not just probable negligence but willful negligence and disregard of sobering warnings due to hubris and reputation. Which led to kid glove treatment by local government entities.

i leaned a lot about the actual facts this week.

---

this aligns with what i've heard first hand from one of the fathers of a mystic girl.