Lead: Families of nine children and counselors who died in the catastrophic flooding at Camp Mystic on July 4 have filed three separate lawsuits against the camp and its owners, alleging gross negligence. The filings, lodged Monday in Travis County District Court, seek more than $1 million in damages in each case and name the camp and members of the Eastland family as defendants. The suits follow a flash flood that swept through the century-old camp in Kerr County, Texas, killing dozens and prompting state action on camp safety. Camp Mystic’s legal counsel has disputed the claims, calling the flood an unprecedented event.
Key Takeaways
- Three lawsuits were filed Monday by families of nine people who died in the July 4 Camp Mystic flood; each seeks more than $1 million in damages.
- One suit represents five campers and two counselors: Anna Margaret Bellows, Lila Bonner, Chloe Childress, Molly DeWitt, Katherine Ferruzzo, Lainey Landry and Blakely McCrory.
- Separate suits were filed for 8-year-old Eloise “Lulu” Peck and 9-year-old Ellen Getten, the latter from the Bubble Inn cabin.
- Defendants include Camp Mystic and members of the Eastland family, long-time owners of the 99-year-old camp in Kerr County.
- The July 4 flash flood killed dozens at the camp and at least 136 people regionwide as the Guadalupe River rose from about 3 feet to nearly 30 feet in roughly 45 minutes.
- Camp Mystic says it evacuated 166 girls safely and that the surge was far larger than any prior flood in the area.
- Families allege the camp ignored state rules on evacuation planning, housed children in flood-prone cabins to save costs, and failed to implement modern safety measures.
- The lawsuits demand a jury trial in Travis County and seek compensation for mental anguish among other damages.
Background
The tragedy unfolded in the predawn hours of July 4 when torrential rain caused a rapid and extreme rise in the Guadalupe River near Camp Mystic, a 99-year-old all-girls Christian summer camp in Texas Hill Country. The sudden surge inundated low-lying cabins and camps along the riverbank. Families and local residents now refer to the group of camp victims as the “Heaven’s 27,” a reference to more than two dozen campers and staff who died at the site.
Camp Mystic has operated on the Guadalupe for nearly a century and had long been situated in an area with known flood risk. Critics and grieving relatives say the camp did not sufficiently modernize safety protocols or reposition housing off known flood plains. Camp leadership and legal counsel counter that the event was extraordinary and that staff worked to evacuate campers and counselors when warnings arrived, asserting that the surge exceeded any prior local precedent.
Main Event
The lawsuits filed Monday lay out a sequence of allegations about decisions made before and during the flood. The first suit, representing five campers and two counselors, accuses the camp of deliberately housing children in flood-prone cabins to avoid relocation costs and failing to maintain required evacuation plans. Plaintiffs allege the camp prioritized cost savings over basic safety measures and training.
The second suit, brought by Eloise Peck’s family, accuses Camp Mystic of gross negligence for failing to implement contemporary safety measures or to update flood protocols despite the known hazard. The third suit, filed by Ellen Getten’s parents, stresses that some cabins—such as the Bubble Inn—were sited beside the river and that camp leaders should have been on elevated alert as weather threats approached.
Camp Mystic’s counsel, Jeff Ray, issued a statement expressing sympathy for the families while disputing several legal claims. The camp maintains that the flash flood was unprecedented in magnitude and that no adequate local warning systems existed. Camp spokespeople and witnesses provided a timeline indicating initial warnings early in the morning, a ground-crew convening by co-owner Dick Eastland and an evacuation of multiple cabins before water overtook low-lying areas.
Richard “Dick” Eastland, a co-owner who died during the event, is described by family spokespersons as having tried to save some campers. Camp officials say 166 girls were evacuated safely from higher-ground sections of the property, while cabins nearer the river suffered the worst losses.
Analysis & Implications
The suits transform the immediate grief of July 4 into a legal test of responsibility for long-standing institutions operating in known hazard zones. If plaintiffs prove the camp violated state-mandated evacuation planning or ignored obvious risk mitigation steps, the rulings could establish stronger liability precedents for private camps nationwide. Such rulings would likely prompt accelerated capital investments in relocation, early-warning infrastructure and staff training at similar facilities.
On the regulatory front, the disaster already spurred legislative change in Texas: in September, Governor Greg Abbott signed upgraded camp safety requirements that include outdoor sirens and expanded warning systems in flood-prone areas. The lawsuits may drive further rule-making or enforcement scrutiny, with state and local authorities re-evaluating permitting and oversight practices for summer camps located near rivers and creeks.
Economically, liability findings or large settlements could shift the business model for for-profit camps operating in risky locations, increasing insurance costs and prompting some operators to move infrastructure uphill. Socially, the case underscores tensions between historic camp traditions—many on long-held family lands—and modern safety expectations, particularly where children are involved.
Comparison & Data
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Date of flood | July 4 |
| Camp victims in suits | 9 named in three lawsuits |
| Camp evacuations claimed by camp | 166 girls evacuated |
| Regional deaths from flood | At least 136 people |
| Guadalupe River rise | ~3 ft to ~30 ft in ~45 minutes |
The table summarizes key quantitative facts central to both the legal claims and the camp’s defense. The river’s near-30-foot surge in less than an hour is the focal point of the camp’s defense that the event exceeded prior local records, while plaintiffs emphasize steady preexisting flood risk and camp siting decisions as actionable failures.
Reactions & Quotes
Families and advocates have publicly demanded accountability and sharper safety standards for camps. One parent described the absence of basic protocols as an avoidable betrayal of trust.
“Obvious commonsense safety measures were absent. Protocols that should have been in place were ignored.”
CiCi Williams Steward, parent of a missing child (family statement)
The camp’s legal team framed the flood as extraordinary and disputed claims that staff behaved negligently.
“We intend to demonstrate that this sudden surge of floodwaters far exceeded any previous flood in the area and that it was unexpected.”
Jeff Ray, legal counsel for Camp Mystic
Independent observers and some emergency-management experts note gaps in rural warning systems and cell coverage that complicate rapid response. Camp spokespeople have said limited cell reception in the remote area may have affected who received the first alerts, a point the lawsuits question and seek to investigate further.
Unconfirmed
- Which individual campers, counselors or staff definitively received the first official warning at 1:14 a.m. remains disputed between family accounts and camp statements.
- The precise timing and content of all internal camp communications before and during the flood have not been fully independently verified in public records.
- Whether alternative, feasible evacuation routes could have been executed safely before waters rose is subject to factual dispute and will be developed in discovery.
Bottom Line
The three lawsuits mark the first formal legal response by victims’ families against Camp Mystic following the July 4 flash flood and crystallize core allegations: that children were housed in flood-prone cabins, evacuation planning was inadequate, and that owners prioritized cost savings over safety. Camp Mystic disputes those allegations, emphasizing the flood’s unprecedented scope and asserting that many campers were evacuated without loss of life.
Beyond compensation for grieving families, the case will test how courts and regulators assign responsibility for longstanding facilities operating in known hazard zones. Expect protracted litigation with fact-finding on warnings, decision-making, and whether upgraded infrastructure or different site choices could have materially changed outcomes. Meanwhile, state-level policy shifts already enacted suggest regulators intend to tighten safety expectations for camps statewide.
Sources
- KSL.com — local news report on lawsuits and victims (media)
- CNN — national coverage of Camp Mystic flooding and timeline statements (media)
- Office of the Texas Governor — statements and subsequent camp safety legislation (official)