Lead
Families of children and two counselors who died at Camp Mystic during the July 4 flash flood in Kerr County, Texas, have filed lawsuits alleging gross negligence and reckless disregard for safety. The suits name the camp and related parties, saying decisions about cabin placement, evacuation policy and profit priorities turned a predictable hazard into a “self-created disaster.” In total, 28 people at the Guadalupe River site — 25 campers, two counselors and the camp director — died when floodwaters overwhelmed the camp overnight. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and transparency as state and local authorities continue reviewing camp safety rules after the wider Hill Country disaster.
Key Takeaways
- At least 28 people died at Camp Mystic’s Guadalupe River site on July 4: 25 campers, two counselors and the camp director, according to the lawsuits.
- The lawsuits were filed Monday and include multi-family and individual petitions; each suit seeks at least $1 million in damages.
- Named plaintiffs include five campers (Anna Margaret Bellows, Lila Bonner, Molly DeWitt, Lainey Landry, Blakely McCrory) and two counselors (Chloe Childress, 18; Katherine Ferruzzo, 19), plus separate suits for Eloise “LuLu” Peck and Ellen Getten.
- Plaintiffs allege Camp Mystic knew the site was in a flood-prone zone, had prior flood events, received warnings and nonetheless made “catastrophic” placement and policy choices.
- The suits cite a claimed policy or directive to avoid evacuating cabins during floods; that allegation remains contested in filings.
- Regional impact: the July storms killed at least 138 people across Hill Country, including 117 in Kerr County; officials reported over 12 inches of rain in under six hours and the Guadalupe River rising more than 20 feet per hour.
- State lawmakers have since moved to strengthen camp safety rules and to fund early-warning sirens in flood-prone areas.
Background
Camp Mystic’s Guadalupe River campus is an all-girls Christian sleepaway camp that sat on low-lying ground beside the Guadalupe River. During the July 4 holiday weekend, an intense, localized storm produced extraordinary rainfall across Kerr County and surrounding Hill Country communities. The speed and scale of the event — more than a foot of rain in some places in under six hours — overwhelmed river gauges and local infrastructure.
Flash flooding in this part of Texas has motivated long-running concern: the area is often referred to as part of “Flash Flood Alley” because of its susceptibility to sudden, high-volume runoff from steep hill-country terrain. In the wake of the tragedy, regulators, emergency managers and lawmakers have examined permitting, site-selection rules for camps, and whether warning systems and evacuation plans were adequate for known risks.
Main Event
On Monday, families of multiple victims filed three related lawsuits against Camp Mystic and affiliated entities, asserting negligence and gross negligence. One multifamily petition lists five children and two counselors among the plaintiffs; two additional suits were filed by the parents of Eloise “LuLu” Peck and the father of nine-year-old Ellen Getten. Together the actions seek more than $1 million each in damages and demand information about the camp’s policies and decisions.
The complaints recount that campers were asleep when floodwaters surged through the camp’s cabins, trapping many residents. Plaintiffs allege camp leadership placed cabins in vulnerable, low-lying locations near the Guadalupe River and maintained unsafe procedures for flood response, including an asserted “never evacuate” directive that plaintiffs say prevented lifesaving action.
Families’ attorneys also challenge Camp Mystic’s public posture since the disaster, citing a decision to partially reopen a sister site and statements describing the event as an “act of God.” The suits frame such responses as inadequate and assert that they compound survivors’ grief by resisting accountability. Camp Mystic announced in September plans to open its Cypress Lake sister site for summer 2026 while acknowledging the Guadalupe River campus will remain closed because of extensive damage.
ABC News reported that the suits name additional individuals in one filing — William Neely Bonner III and Seaborn Stacy Eastland — though the precise roles alleged in the complaints vary. ABC News also noted outreach to Camp Mystic’s legal representatives and to families named in the filings for comment.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, these suits will hinge on whether plaintiffs can show that camp operators knew of a foreseeable risk and failed to take reasonable measures to protect campers. Plaintiffs must prove duty, breach, causation and damages; camps typically owe a high duty of care to minors in their charge. Allegations of prior flood events at the site and warnings from family members, if documented, strengthen plaintiffs’ negligence claims.
Camp Mystic and affiliates may invoke an “act of God” defense to argue the storm was an unforeseeable natural disaster beyond reasonable preparation. Courts, however, evaluate foreseeability: in areas with documented flash-flood history and known hydrologic indicators, a catastrophic storm may be foreseeable and thus reduce the effectiveness of that defense.
Beyond courtroom outcomes, the litigation will shape policy and industry practice. Regulators already are scrutinizing camp siting, permitting and early-warning requirements; liability exposure and public pressure may spur operators to alter site choices, invest in sirens and monitoring, revise evacuation plans and change insurance practices for youth programs in flood-prone regions.
Financially, defendants could face substantial settlements or judgments, particularly given the number of potential plaintiffs and the high public-profile nature of the tragedy. Insurers, camp owners and local governments may all reassess risk allocation and emergency-preparedness spending in the months ahead.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Reported Figure |
|---|---|
| Camp Mystic fatalities (Guadalupe River site) | 28 (25 campers, 2 counselors, 1 director) |
| Hill Country storm fatalities | At least 138 total; 117 in Kerr County |
| Reported rainfall in parts of Kerr County | More than 12 inches in under 6 hours |
| Guadalupe River rise rate reported | More than 20 feet per hour |
The table summarizes figures reported by local officials and in court filings. Those numbers frame both the human toll and the hydrometeorological severity defenders and plaintiffs will reference in litigation and regulatory reviews.
Reactions & Quotes
Families’ legal counsel and camp officials have issued contrasting public statements. Plaintiffs’ lawyers emphasize accountability; camp leadership has expressed grief while describing recovery steps and future reopening plans for an unaffected sister site.
“Our clients have filed this lawsuit to seek accountability and truth,”
Paul Yetter, plaintiffs’ attorney (statement to media)
“The heart of Camp Mystic has never stopped beating… we are rebuilding in a way mindful of those we have lost,”
Camp Mystic (public statement announcing limited reopen)
“Officials continue to investigate and review local warning systems and development rules in the aftermath of the floods,”
Kerr County emergency officials (public briefings)
Unconfirmed
- The existence and wording of a formal camp-wide “never evacuate” order remains contested and has not been independently verified outside plaintiffs’ allegations.
- Precise timing and content of any flood warnings delivered to Camp Mystic staff before the storm are not yet publicly documented in a manner confirmed by independent records.
- The full involvement or individual conduct of named private defendants (William Neely Bonner III, Seaborn Stacy Eastland) in operational decisions has not been established in the public record.
Bottom Line
The suits filed by families of Camp Mystic victims mark the start of protracted legal and regulatory scrutiny stemming from a deadly, fast-moving July flood that killed 28 people at the Guadalupe River camp. Plaintiffs assert that foreseeable flood risk and specific operational choices turned a known hazard into a preventable tragedy; defendants may emphasize the storm’s extraordinary nature and lack of foreseeability.
Beyond the courtroom, the case is likely to accelerate policy changes for summer camps and flood-prone communities: stricter siting rules, investment in early-warning infrastructure and clearer emergency procedures. For families and communities, the litigation is as much about compensation as it is about establishing facts and preventing future loss.