Camp Mystic Flood Lawsuit Alleges Negligence and Profit Motive

The tragic events of July 4th at Camp Mystic in Hunt, Texas, have spurred a series of lawsuits alleging gross negligence and a prioritization of profit over safety, resulting in the deaths of 27 girls and counselors. These legal actions seek to hold the camp and its owners accountable for what the plaintiffs describe as an entirely preventable tragedy. The lawsuits highlight the devastating consequences of alleged failures in safety protocols and decision-making, raising critical questions about the responsibilities of for-profit institutions in safeguarding the well-being of those in their care.

The Catastrophic Flood and its Aftermath

On July 4th, 2025, a flash flood swept through Camp Mystic, a long-standing summer camp for girls located in “Flash Flood Alley” along the Guadalupe River. The Guadalupe River rose to historic levels on July 4, bringing devastating floodwaters to the cabins where some of Camp Mystic’s youngest girls slept. The flood claimed the lives of 25 campers and two counselors, leaving families and communities in mourning. The disaster has also brought scrutiny to emergency warning systems and preparedness in the region.

Lawsuits Allege Negligence and Profit-Driven Decisions

The families of the victims have filed multiple lawsuits against Camp Mystic, its owners (including members of the Eastland family), and affiliated entities. These lawsuits share a common thread: allegations of gross negligence, recklessness, and a prioritization of profit over the safety of the campers and counselors.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim that Camp Mystic:

Failed to Adopt State-Required Evacuation Plans: Despite operating in a known flood zone, the camp allegedly did not have adequate evacuation plans in place, violating state regulations.
Ignored Weather Warnings: The lawsuits assert that Camp Mystic ignored repeated weather warnings from the National Weather Service about the potential for significant rain and floods, including a “life-threatening flash flooding” warning issued in the early hours of July 4th.
Prioritized Property Over Lives: It is alleged that camp leaders instructed campers to remain in their cabins and focused on protecting property and equipment rather than evacuating individuals to safety.
Housed Campers in Flood-Prone Areas: The lawsuits claim that the camp chose to house young girls in cabins located in flood-prone areas to avoid the cost of relocating the cabins.
Provided Inadequate Training: The camp allegedly provided no training regarding evacuation procedures.

One lawsuit included a copy of emergency instructions found in a counselor’s flooded trunk, which appeared to direct campers and counselors to “NEVER wander away from your cabin” in case of flooding, claiming that the cabins were “constructed on high, safe locations.”

The families are seeking monetary damages exceeding $1 million, including compensation for mental anguish, physical pain, loss of companionship, and funeral and burial expenses. They have also demanded a jury trial.

“Heaven’s 27”

The lawsuits are collectively referred to as “Heaven’s 27,” a poignant reminder of the young lives lost in the tragedy. The families bringing the lawsuits include Warren and Patricia Bellows, Blake and Caitlin Bonner, Matthew and Wendie Childress, Ryan and Elizabeth DeWitt, John and Andrea Ferruzzo, Ben and Natalie Landry, and Lindsey McCrory. The parents of 8-year-old Eloise “Lulu” Peck have also filed a lawsuit against the camp.

Ryan DeWitt, whose daughter Molly was among the victims, stated, “We carry the memory of our daughter in everything we do. This legal step is about honoring her and ensuring truth and justice for all the families affected. We hope this case brings accountability and leads to better safety protections at youth camps.”

Camp Mystic’s Response

Jeff Ray, legal counsel for Camp Mystic, released a statement expressing empathy for the families but disputing the claims made in the lawsuits. He stated, “We intend to demonstrate and prove that this sudden surge of floodwaters far exceeded any previous flood in the area by several magnitudes, that it was unexpected and that no adequate warning systems existed in the area.”

Camp Mystic has announced plans to partially reopen in the summer of 2026 for its 100th anniversary, a decision that has drawn criticism from some of the victims’ families.

Legal and Safety Implications

The Camp Mystic flood lawsuit raises important legal and safety implications for youth camps and similar organizations:

Duty of Care: Camps have a legal duty to provide a safe environment for campers and to protect them from foreseeable harm.
Negligence: To prove negligence, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that Camp Mystic breached its duty of care, and that this breach directly caused the deaths of the campers and counselors.
Gross Negligence: The lawsuits allege gross negligence, which requires a showing that the camp acted with a conscious indifference to the rights and safety of others.
Emergency Preparedness: Camps must have comprehensive emergency plans in place, including evacuation procedures, communication protocols, and staff training.
Risk Assessment: Camps should conduct thorough risk assessments to identify potential hazards and implement appropriate safety measures.
Insurance Coverage: Camps should maintain adequate insurance coverage to protect against potential liabilities.

The Path Forward

The Camp Mystic flood lawsuit is a complex and emotionally charged legal battle. The families of the victims are seeking justice and accountability for the loss of their loved ones. The outcome of these lawsuits could have significant implications for the youth camp industry, potentially leading to stricter safety regulations and greater oversight.

Beyond the legal proceedings, this tragedy underscores the importance of prioritizing safety in all activities involving children. Camps and similar organizations must take proactive steps to protect the well-being of those in their care, ensuring that profit motives never outweigh the fundamental responsibility to safeguard human lives.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to the negligence of another party, it is essential to seek legal counsel to understand your rights and options. Contact a qualified personal injury attorney to discuss your case and explore the possibility of pursuing a claim for damages.