What is an Unavoidable Accident?

Picture this: You’re cruising down a foggy highway, staying alert and following the rules. Then out of nowhere, a tire blows. The vehicle spins out, blocks the lanes, and another driver collides with you. Whose fault is it — or is no one at fault at all?

That’s the essence of the unavoidable accident doctrine — a legal concept that recognizes not every mishap stems from carelessness or negligence.

At its core, an unavoidable accident occurs when a collision happens without negligence on the part of anyone involved. Negligence boils down to not acting as a reasonably prudent person would under the circumstances. If all parties were driving responsibly, keeping their vehicles in shape, and an unforeseen event like a mechanical glitch or harsh weather intervenes, liability doesn’t attach.

This isn’t an excuse for reckless behavior; it’s reserved for situations where prevention was genuinely impossible despite due care.

Historical Development of the Unavoidable Accident Doctrine in Texas Law

Before diving into its modern application, it’s important to understand where the unavoidable accident doctrine comes from and how it has evolved in Texas law. This doctrine didn’t appear overnight — it developed over decades through judicial interpretation and practical necessity. By tracing its historical roots, we can better appreciate why it remains a nuanced but significant aspect of negligence law in Texas.

Early Origins and Evolution

Texas courts have grappled with this idea for more than a century. It first appeared as a jury instruction, designed to help fact-finders weigh whether an incident was truly faultless when assessing blame. Early rulings, such as those involving train wrecks and industrial accidents, highlighted that some events unfold without human error.

Modern Refinements

By the late 20th century, particularly in Reinhart v. Young, the Texas Supreme Court, cautioned against overusing these jury instructions, noting they might muddle jurors into viewing it as a standalone defense rather than an aspect of the negligence inquiry. The Court emphasized limiting its use to cases with specific evidence of unforeseeable, unavoidable events. Today, it’s treated as an inferential rebuttal defense — challenging the plaintiff’s proof of fault without shifting the entire burden to the defendant.

How the Doctrine Works in Practice

Here’s the practical side: The injured party must demonstrate the defendant’s carelessness. When a defendant invokes unavoidability, it’s essentially a challenge: “Show me how this could have been prevented through reasonable actions.”

Applications include sudden health issues behind the wheel or wildlife darting into traffic. Judges seldom issue specific instructions now to prevent confusion. It overlaps with concepts like sudden emergency — reacting to an abrupt threat — or acts of God, but the crux is unforeseeability without underlying neglect.

How Lozada v. Posada Changes the Unavoidable Accident Doctrine

Case Overview

Fast-forward to a recent Texas Supreme Court decision that refines and sharpens the unavoidable accident doctrine: Osvanis Lozada and TELS, Inc. v. Cesar R. Posada, handed down per curiam on June 20, 2025.

This pivotal ruling provides long-awaited clarification on how Texas courts should handle unavoidable accident claims at the summary judgment stage. It demystifies the evidentiary and procedural standards, offering valuable guidance for laypeople facing post-crash litigation and a strategic blueprint for attorneys navigating early dismissals.

The Plaintiff’s Position

The dispute centered on a highway collision between two tractor-trailers. Plaintiff Cesar Posada alleged defendant Osvanis Lozada negligently operated his rig, leading to a jackknife that blocked Interstate 10. Posada claimed violations of traffic statutes on safe speeds and roadway clearance, seeking to pin vicarious liability on Lozada’s employer, TELS, Inc.

Central to Posada’s theory was the contention that Lozada drove at an unsafe speed given the poor visibility and road conditions — clocking in at 72 mph in dense fog, though technically below the posted limit of 75 mph. He argued these circumstances raised fact questions about whether Lozada adhered to the reasonable prudent driver standard, with the jackknife creating an unavoidable roadblock that directly caused the ensuing crash with Posada.

Posada further alleged that under Texas Transportation Code provisions, particularly those governing safe following distances and driving at speeds appropriate for existing conditions, Lozada had a statutory duty to operate his vehicle with heightened caution—especially in adverse weather.

The Defense’s Position

Lozada and TELS countered that the incident was unavoidable. Lozada described a rapid deflation of a seemingly sound, new tire that yanked the truck rightward, triggering the jackknife despite his efforts to regain control — all while under the speed limit and avoiding other vehicles in the fog.

They emphasized that the tire failure was sudden, without warning, and completely unforeseeable— a classic mechanical failure scenario beyond human anticipation or prevention. The defense underscored that Lozada had performed pre-trip inspections and adhered to all relevant safety protocols, eliminating any inference of negligence on his part.

Relying on Texas jurisprudence recognizing mechanical failures as potential unavoidable accidents, they maintained this was a pure mechanical surprise, not negligence. Leveraging traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions, they argued Posada lacked proof of breach or proximate causation, and emphasized the accident’s excused, unavoidable nature, asserting that Posada bore the burden to introduce affirmative evidence of Lozada’s fault—something he failed to do at the summary judgment stage.

Lozada v. Posada: From Trial Court to Supreme Court

To fully grasp the significance of Lozada v. Posada, it’s essential to trace the case’s journey through the Texas court system — highlighting how the handling of evidence and legal standards evolved at each stage. This progression reveals not only the shifting interpretations of the unavoidable accident doctrine but also underscores the evidentiary hurdles plaintiffs face when trying to survive summary judgment in negligence cases.

From initial dismissal to appellate reversal, and ultimately to the Texas Supreme Court’s decisive intervention, the case illustrates the modern litigation landscape surrounding unavoidable accidents in Texas.

Initial Proceedings

In the trial court, Lozada and TELS, Inc. sought summary judgment, arguing the crash resulted from an unavoidable tire blowout, not negligence. Posada pushed back, claiming the defense had to affirmatively disprove fault through traditional summary judgment, not simply assert unavoidable accident.

His response relied on two main points: brief excerpts from Lozada’s deposition noting foggy conditions and speed, and crash photos showing the truck blocking the roadway. Posada argued these allowed a jury to infer Lozada drove too fast for conditions.

The trial court disagreed, ruling Posada’s evidence lacked concrete proof of negligence. Without expert testimony or clear factual disputes, the court found Posada’s claims speculative and granted summary judgment, dismissing the case.

The Appeals Court Split

On appeal, the case landed before the El Paso Court of Appeals, where the justices split in a 2-1 decision. The majority overturned the trial court’s dismissal, holding that Posada’s limited evidence — specifically the deposition snippets and crash-site photos — created enough of a factual dispute to warrant a jury trial. The majority reasoned that even with the sudden tire failure, a reasonable juror could still question whether Lozada’s speed or actions contributed to the jackknife, especially given the foggy conditions.

In contrast, the dissent strongly disagreed. The dissenting justice argued that Posada’s evidence amounted to little more than conjecture, with no expert analysis or concrete proof that Lozada acted unreasonably or that his speed caused the wreck. The dissent warned that allowing the case to proceed would undermine summary judgment standards by letting weak inferences survive dispositive motions.

This split created a clear legal question about how courts should handle unavoidable accident claims at summary judgment, prompting the Texas Supreme Court to accept the case for review.

Detailed Facts of the Accident

The collision occurred on a foggy, early morning along I-10 near El Paso. Lozada was driving eastbound from Houston, traveling at 72 mph — below the posted limit of 75 mph — when his truck’s tire unexpectedly failed, “popping off the rim” and causing the vehicle to jackknife across multiple lanes.

Lozada managed to bring the truck to a stop without hitting other vehicles initially, but moments later, Posada’s vehicle collided with the obstructed trailer. While both sides agreed on the sudden and unpredictable nature of the tire failure, the dispute centered on whether Lozada could have taken preventive steps — such as reducing speed in poor visibility or regaining control more quickly — to avoid blocking the roadway.

Evidence Issues

During summary judgment proceedings, Posada’s evidence was notably limited. He relied primarily on short excerpts from Lozada’s deposition and several photographs of the crash scene. There was no expert testimony on tire failure mechanics, no weather analysis, and no eyewitness accounts beyond the parties involved. The trial court ruled this evidence insufficient, concluding that it failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on negligence or causation.

On appeal, however, the majority of the El Paso Court of Appeals found these minimal pieces of evidence enough to justify sending the case to a jury. They believed a jury could reasonably infer that Lozada’s handling, particularly his speed in foggy conditions, contributed to the incident. The dissent disagreed, calling Posada’s case speculative and unsupported, emphasizing the absence of detailed evidence pinpointing Lozada’s alleged negligence.

The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in Lozada v. Posada

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision, reinstating the trial court’s dismissal. While crediting Posada’s evidence at face value, the Court ruled it fell below the legal “scintilla” threshold—too insubstantial to create a genuine fact issue. The Court reaffirmed a key principle: not every accident implies negligence. Without concrete evidence of negligent driving, an improper response to the tire failure, or a failure to adjust speed to conditions, Posada’s claims rested on speculation. The Court noted that crash-scene photos showed only the outcome of the incident, not its cause.

Clarifying The Burden of Proof

At the heart of the decision was a significant clarification of burden allocation. The Court confirmed that plaintiffs carry the responsibility to prove the accident was not unavoidable and that any statutory violations were unexcused. This ruling validated the use of no-evidence summary judgment motions by defendants, rejecting Posada’s argument that unavoidable accident claims required traditional, affirmative proof from the defense.

Treatment of Testimony

The Court also addressed how a plaintiff may—or may not—rely on a defendant’s own testimony. Since Posada’s argument hinged entirely on Lozada’s clear, uncontested account of events, the Court held that a plaintiff cannot create a fact issue by merely speculating about a defendant’s truthful testimony in the absence of contradictory evidence. Without expert opinions or alternative factual narratives to challenge Lozada’s version, the Court concluded there was no viable evidence of negligence, eliminating any need to address causation or employer liability.

Historical Context and Legal Framework

Fitting Into Texas Jurisprudence

Lozada v. Posada fits squarely within the evolution of Texas unavoidable accident jurisprudence. It reinforces the doctrine’s role as a rebuttal mechanism focused on excusing accidents caused by non-human factors—like mechanical failures or natural events. Historically, Texas courts have acknowledged unavoidable accidents to prevent unfair liability, particularly in early transportation cases. Over time, however, the courts narrowed its use, warning against confusing juries with unnecessary instructions. Lozada continues this refinement, extending those principles into modern mechanical failure contexts without inviting jury speculation.

Related Legal Doctrines

The ruling aligns closely with the sudden emergency doctrine, where drivers reacting reasonably to unforeseen crises are excused from liability. It diverges from product liability theories, where defective design or manufacturing remains actionable, and from contributory negligence, which apportions blame. Legal scholars view unavoidable accident claims as an important filter within negligence law—forcing courts and juries to distinguish between preventable and purely accidental events.

Practical Implications

For Everyone

For the average driver, this decision raises the standard of proof in auto accident claims involving mechanical failures or hazardous conditions. Plaintiffs must produce specific evidence of fault, making it harder to pursue claims without clear-cut negligence. This protects responsible drivers but may pose hurdles for accident victims without access to costly investigations.

For Legal Professionals

Defense attorneys gain a sharper tool in no-evidence summary judgments, particularly in industries like trucking where mechanical failures are common defenses. Conversely, plaintiffs’ attorneys must now proactively gather and present evidence early—including inspection records, black-box data, and expert reports—to avoid dismissal.

Broader Legal System Impact

On a systemic level, Lozada promotes judicial efficiency by clearing weak claims early, reducing unnecessary trials. However, it also raises concerns about access to justice, as legitimate cases might be prematurely dismissed when plaintiffs lack immediate access to in-depth technical evidence. In insurance litigation, the ruling may tighten payouts in cases involving mechanical failures or unpredictable events.

Looking Forward: Expected Changes in Litigation

Lozada is expected to lead to more early dismissals in cases involving mechanical failures or adverse weather, as defendants push no-evidence motions more aggressively. It raises the bar for plaintiffs, requiring clearer proof of preventable fault to survive.

While it overlaps with visible hazard doctrines, Lozada sharpens focus on whether defendants could have prevented the initial danger—not just reacted to it—streamlining roadway liability disputes.|

Applying Lozada to Camp Mystic Flood Litigation

The recent deadly floods at Camp Mystic, a Texas summer camp on the Guadalupe River, highlight how Lozada’s unavoidable accident principles could influence legal defenses claiming an “act of God.” In July 2025, a flash flood claimed lives and prompted legal action alleging negligence by the camp, local authorities, or the state — focusing on possible failures such as ignored weather warnings, inadequate monitoring, or poor evacuation despite historical flood risks.

Defendants could argue that the flood was unavoidable, akin to an act of God: a sudden, unforeseen natural event beyond their control, with no negligence in preparations. Under Lozada, they wouldn’t have to affirmatively prove the flood was unavoidable. Instead, plaintiffs bear the burden to show it wasn’t unavoidable. This means producing evidence that the camp breached duties — like failing to heed decades-old warnings about the site’s vulnerability, not monitoring overnight weather alerts that could have prompted evacuation, or lacking robust emergency protocols despite recent inspections.

For instance, if proof emerges of disregarded forecasts or radios, it could demonstrate foreseeability and breach, negating unavoidability — similar to how poor tire maintenance evidence might defeat a mechanical failure defense in a vehicle case. However, thin evidence — like mere flood occurrence — would likely fail summary judgment, per Lozada’s scintilla standard. Waivers signed by families might offer limited shield, but negligence trumps them if proven.

This application could strengthen defenses in natural disaster suits, requiring plaintiffs to present concrete proof of negligence early. It protects entities from blame in truly freak events but underscores accountability where risks were apparent. For Camp Mystic litigants, Lozada serves as a reminder: Claims of divine acts or natural forces demand rigorous rebuttal to reach a jury.

Words Fail

Words cannot fully describe the loss felt by so many during the tragic floods in the Texas Hill Country on July 4, 2025. It is impossible to convey the pain endured by families who went to sleep whole the night before, only to be torn apart by morning.

In the heartache, questions swirl. Could anything have been done differently? Investigations — and lawsuits when appropriate — aren’t about punishment or retribution. They’re not about financial recovery. There is nothing any parent or loved one wouldn’t give for just one more moment. One more hug. One more “good night.”

No, investigations and legal actions serve one purpose: to ensure that a tragedy like this never happens again.

The Tragedy That Unfolded

The flooding on the Guadalupe River caused widespread destruction across six Texas counties, claiming at least 110 lives, including at least 27 children and counselors from Camp Mystic.

The disaster began when an extraordinary amount of rainfall fell across the Texas Hill Country in the early morning hours of July 4. Between 10 to 15 inches of fell in just a few hours, with some areas receiving up to 12 inches in a three-hour period. To put this into perspective, the region received in just four hours the equivalent of four months’ worth of typical rainfall.

The Guadalupe River experienced a dramatic and rapid rise, with the river gauge at Hunt recording a 22-foot rise in just two hours. In Kerrville, the river rose from less than 2 feet to over 34 feet between 2:00 AM and 7:00 AM.

Camp Mystic: The Epicenter for Loss

Camp Mystic, a nearly 100-year-old Christian summer camp for girls, became the epicenter of this tragedy. The camp, which hosted 750 girls between the ages of 7 and 17 at the time of the flooding, suffered catastrophic damage when the Guadalupe River overflowed its banks in the early morning hours.

Camp Mystic stands as one of Texas’s most storied summer camps, founded in 1926 as “Stewart’s Camp for Girls” by E.J. “Doc” Stewart, a former University of Texas football coach who had served from 1923 to 1926. Stewart had already found success with Camp Stewart for boys, which he founded two years earlier in 1924, before turning his attention to creating a parallel experience for girls along the pristine Guadalupe River.

The camp’s transformation came in 1937 when it was purchased by Agnes “Ag” and Gillespie “Pop” Stacy, who renamed it “Camp Mystic.” The name change reflected the almost magical quality of the Texas Hill Country setting — the towering cypress trees, the crystal-clear river water, and the starlit nights that had already begun creating lifelong memories for young Texas girls.

During World War II, the Stacy family’s stewardship was briefly interrupted when the federal government leased the property from 1943 to 1945 as a convalescent camp for Army Air Corps veterans, but the camp returned to its original mission after the war.

Since 1968, Camp Mystic has been owned and operated by the Eastland family, with Dick and Tweety Eastland taking primary control in 1974. Dick Eastland, who tragically lost his life while trying to save campers from the floodwaters, had long been a central figure in the camp’s growth and legacy.

Under their leadership, the camp evolved into what many called a finishing school for Texas’s social and political elite. The camp’s alumni roster reads like a directory of American political power: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s daughters, granddaughters, and great-granddaughters all attended Camp Mystic. Laura Bush served as a counselor there while attending Southern Methodist University, decades before becoming First Lady. James Baker’s daughter and granddaughter also joined the ranks of “Mystic girls.” Baker would later serve as chief of staff for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

By 2025, the Eastland family empire had expanded to include two locations: the original Camp Mystic on the Guadalupe River and the newer Camp Mystic Cypress Lake, established in 2020 and located a half mile from the original site. The multi-generational operation involved Dick and Tweety’s sons: Richard served as Head Chef and Kitchen Supervisor; Edward and his wife, Mary Liz, are Directors at the Guadalupe River location; while Britt and his wife, Catie, oversaw the Cypress Lake facility.

The camp offered more than 30 activities ranging from traditional crafts and horseback riding to water sports, synchronized swimming, and war canoe racing. With four-week sessions accommodating up to 750 girls ages 7 to 17, Camp Mystic has become one of the largest and most prestigious girls’ camps in the nation, carrying forward nearly a century of tradition in the heart of Texas Hill Country.

Flash Flood Alley

The Texas Hill Country along the Guadalupe River hosts an extraordinary concentration of summer camps – roughly two dozen camps dot the landscape up and down the cooling Guadalupe River and its tributaries. This remarkable density of camps has developed over more than a century, making the region a cornerstone of Texas camping culture.

This area is known as “Flash Flood Alley” due to its vulnerability to sudden flooding. The region’s steep hills and rocky land don’t absorb water well, causing rain to quickly flow into creeks and rivers. When it rains, water doesn’t soak into the soil but rushes down hill. This geographic reality, combined with the concentration of camps along the riverbank, created a perfect storm for tragedy.

Camp Mystic has experienced a major flood approximately every 30 years. In 1932, a flash flood swept through the camp, washing away several cabins, though no fatalities were reported. In 1987, a flood on the same river claimed the lives of 10 teenagers at a nearby church camp. The July 4, 2025 flood has drawn comparisons to the devastating July 1987 Guadalupe River flood, with remarkably similar water levels – 37.72 feet in 1987 at Kerrville, compared to 36.58 feet during the 2025 disaster.

Timeline of Warnings and Flooding

In the lead-up to the deadly July 4 flood, a series of escalating alerts were issued—but critical time passed between early warnings and the declaration of a life-threatening emergency. The following timeline outlines how events unfolded:

• July 3, 2025, 1:18 PM: National Weather Service issued flood watch for Kerr County

The Texas Tribune put together an excellent summary of what happens when the flood watch is issued:

1. The alert allows local emergency management and local media to spread the word
2. The Emergency Alert System is activated to broadcast warnings to televisions and radios.
3. Wireless Emergency Alert activation, that pushes notifications to cellphone towers to all wireless phones in the area.

The system was updated nine times on Friday, each triggering a separate alert.

• July 4, 2025, 1:14 AM: First flash flood warning issued for Kerr County.
• 4:03 AM: Flash flood emergency declared for Hunt and Ingram areas.
• 5:34 AM: Flash flood emergency issued for Kerrville
• 6:16 AM: Kerrville Police Department issued first warning on Facebook describing it as a “life-threatening event.”

Nearly 12 hours passed between the National Weather Service flood watch and the first flash flood warning.

Stories of Sacrifice and Heroism

In this tragedy, countless stories of heroes have emerged — ordinary people who became extraordinary in moments of crisis, proving that even in the darkest hours, human courage and love shine through.

Julian Ryan, a 27-year-old father, made the ultimate sacrifice to save his family. When floodwaters engulfed their trailer, he punched through a window to create an escape route for his fiancée, children, and mother, severing an artery in his arm in the process. His final words were, “I’m sorry, I’m not going to make it. I love y’all.” Julian’s love saved his family, even as it cost him his life.

Coast Guard rescue swimmer Scott Ruskan saved 165 people in his first-ever rescue mission, serving as the only triage coordinator at Camp Mystic and earning recognition as an “American hero.” His courage and skill in the face of overwhelming tragedy prevented even greater loss of life.

Camp Mystic counselor Chloe Childress, an 18-year-old recent graduate, died “upholding this selfless and fierce commitment to others” while helping campers during the flooding. She gave her life trying to protect the children in her care.

Camp counselors formed human chains to save children. One mother reported that “two counselors were in the rapids and one on the dry hill moving the kids from hand to hand” to get campers to safety. These young adults, many of whom were barely out of their teens themselves, showed extraordinary bravery in the most impossible circumstances.

Nearby Camps Took Early Precautionary Measures

While the situation developed rapidly and unpredictably, some nearby camps, like Mo-Ranch Assembly, took precautionary measures in response to the looming threat. Officials at this 500-acre Presbyterian camp had been monitoring the weather for about 24 hours before the flooding began.

At about 1 a.m. Friday, Mo-Ranch facilities manager Aroldo Barrera notified his boss, who had been tracking storm reports. Despite the absence of warning by local authorities, camp officials acted quickly on their own, relocating about 70 children and adults staying overnight in a building near the river to higher ground. As communications director Lisa Winters explained, “They helped them pack up, they got them up, they got them out, put them up on higher ground.”

Camps Rio Vista and Sierra Vista also showed proactive planning. Organizers had mentioned on social media that they were watching the weather the day before, ending their second summer session on Thursday.

Camp La Junta experienced flooding but managed to keep all campers safe. Despite dramatic footage showing a cabin being swept down the river, the camp posted on Facebook Friday, “Everyone at Camp La Junta is safe and accounted for.”

27 Lives Lost at Camp Mystic

The July 4 flood left a devastating mark on Camp Mystic, claiming the lives of 27 individuals. Nestled along the south fork of the Guadalupe River, just southwest of Hunt, Texas, the beloved girls’ camp became the epicenter of one of the deadliest flood events in recent state history. The camp’s structure, traditions, and layout—so central to its charm—played an unexpected and tragic role in the unfolding disaster.

The camp operates on a four-week session model, with girls divided by age into distinct groups, each with their own designated living areas. The physical layout followed a hierarchical geography that would prove tragically significant. The campus stretched from the river’s edge up into the hills, with different elevations serving different age groups and purposes.

At the heart of camp life were the cabins—rustic structures with whimsical names like Bubble Inn, Giggle Box, and Wiggle Inn that housed 8 to 12 girls each. Cabin counselors were commonly college-aged young women who had themselves been Mystic campers in previous years.

The camp’s layout placed the youngest girls in cabins just feet from the river. They were located on low flats, less than a football field’s distance from the banks of the Guadalupe. In contrast, older campers were housed on higher ground called Senior Hill, where elevation provided additional safety. The geographical arrangement became a critical factor in the impact of the flooding event.

Differing Positions on Flood Warning Effectiveness

Following the devastating floods in Kerr County, Texas, two distinct positions have emerged regarding the effectiveness of emergency warnings issued before and during the disaster.

Weather Service and Meteorologists

The National Weather Service (NWS) and meteorologists maintain that multiple, clear, and urgent warnings were issued well in advance, providing ample time for evacuation.

Local Officials

Local officials in Kerrville and Kerr County assert that warnings were either not received in a timely manner, or that the situation developed so quickly that evacuation could have posed even greater risks, especially at night.

Removal of Dozens of Camp Mystic buildings from FEMA Flood Maps

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produces flood insurance rate maps identifying Special Flood Hazard Areas, which are zones facing a 1% annual flood risk, often referred to as the 100-year floodplain. These maps enforce mandates for flood insurance and impose rigorous building codes to lessen dangers in high-risk spots such as the Texas Hill Country. Property owners, however, can petition to exclude structures from these zones via a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), typically by commissioning engineering analyses to prove buildings are raised or situated beyond the hazard area.

In 2011, FEMA included Camp Mystic in a Special Flood Hazard Area. FEMA approved revisions in 2013 that delisted 15 structures at the Guadalupe River location and an additional 15 in 2019 and 2020 for the Cypress Lake extension, even with the region’s documented flooding history.

Such exemptions spark major concerns for sites accommodating children, such as youth camps in areas prone to sudden floods. Syracuse University associate professor Sarah Pralle, who has extensively studied FEMA’s flood map determinations, said it was “particularly disturbing” that a camp in charge of the safety of so many young people would receive exemptions from basic flood regulation. “It’s a mystery to me why they weren’t taking proactive steps to move structures away from the risk, let alone challenging what seems like a very reasonable map that shows these structures were in the 100-year flood zone,” she said to Fortune.

Understanding Texas Youth Camp Regulations in Context

In the aftermath of a tragedy, it’s natural to ask whether more could have been done to prevent it. For youth camps in Texas, safety isn’t just a priority—it’s a legal requirement governed by state regulations designed to protect children in structured environments. These laws establish minimum standards, but they also leave room for interpretation and judgment, particularly when camps operate near natural hazards like rivers.

The following statutes provide a baseline for youth camps operating in the state.

Texas Administrative Code §265.16 – Waterfront Safety Requirements

The regulation establishes staffing ratios: “For every 35 campers, or fraction thereof, engaged in waterfront activities, there shall be one certified lifeguard and one additional person (either a certified lifeguard or trained adult lookout) on duty.” Critically, it adds that “camps utilizing natural bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, or creeks may need to increase this ratio.”

In the context of Camp Mystic’s 750 campers, strict application of the base ratio would require at least 22 certified lifeguards for water activities. However, the regulation’s acknowledgment that natural water bodies “may need to increase this ratio” suggests that camps must exercise judgment based on specific risks – including the known flood potential of their location.

This regulation also establishes comprehensive waterfront safety requirements for all Texas youth camps. The law mandates that “an adult waterfront director, who holds a current lifeguard certificate or its equivalent, shall be in charge of all waterfront activities.” Additionally, it requires that “while waterfront activities are in progress, the waterfront director or an adult certified lifeguard assistant shall be in the immediate vicinity (within sight and/or hearing) of the campers, supervising the program.”

For a camp like Camp Mystic, operating on the Guadalupe River with 750 campers, this regulation would require careful consideration of what constitutes “waterfront activities” and “immediate vicinity.” While these terms might traditionally apply to swimming and boating during daytime hours, the placement of sleeping cabins “just feet from the river” raises questions about whether overnight cabin placement near a flood-prone river might itself constitute an activity that requires enhanced supervision.

Texas Administrative Code §265.13 – Safety Standards

This broader regulation states that “buildings, structures, and grounds shall not present a fire, health, or safety hazard.” For camps in Flash Flood Alley, this creates an obligation to consider flood risk in all aspects of facility planning and operation.

The regulation requires camps to “formulate written emergency plans” that must be “posted in administrative offices and all permanent buildings.” These plans must include procedures for “disaster, serious accident, epidemic, or fatality” and specifically require “procedures for emergency shelter and for evacuation of each occupied building and the facility.”

In a flood-prone area, this regulation would seemingly require camps to have specific flood evacuation procedures.

What These Regulations Mean in Practice

For any camp operating in Flash Flood Alley, these regulations create several obligations:

1. Enhanced Risk Assessment: The requirement that grounds not present a “safety hazard” means camps must evaluate and address location-specific risks, including flood potential.
2. Adaptive Staffing: The provision that camps on natural water bodies “may need to increase” staffing ratios suggests a duty to assess and respond to unique risks rather than simply meeting minimum requirements.
3. Comprehensive Emergency Planning: Written emergency plans must address actual risks faced by the facility, which for riverside camps would necessarily include flood scenarios.
4. Supervision Standards: The “immediate vicinity” requirement for waterfront supervision raises questions about overnight arrangements when cabins are placed near water.

Legal Implications

In any legal proceeding following a tragedy like this, these regulations would likely be examined to determine:

• Whether the camp’s practices aligned with regulatory requirements
• Whether the regulations themselves were adequate for the known risks
• How a “reasonable camp operator” would interpret and implement these safety standards
• Whether enhanced precautions were warranted given the specific geographic risks

Legal Pathways Towards Change

When tragedy strikes, legal action can be a powerful tool—not just for accountability, but for meaningful change. It serves a critical purpose in preventing future tragedies, setting legal precedents that protect others, and driving systemic changes that can save lives.

Understanding Negligence Claims

Negligence

In Texas, negligence claims require proving that Camp Mystic owed a duty of care to your children, breached that duty, and that the breach caused the harm.

Duty of Care: Camp Mystic owed multiple duties to campers and their families, including statutory duties under Texas Administrative Code, common law duty to provide reasonably safe premises and supervision, enhanced duty under the in loco parentis doctrine for minor children, and specific waterfront safety duties.

The in loco parentis doctrine is a legal principle meaning “in the place of a parent.” It refers to a situation where an organization or individual assumes some of the responsibilities and duties of a parent for a child.

Breach of Duty: If the evidence shows that these duties were breached, either through failure to evacuate, better communicate the flood warnings, in placement of the cabins, in placement of the youngest campers closest to the flood-prone river, or in inadequate training or planning for the emergency, there might be a legal vehicle for change to prevent similar future breaches.

Negligence Per Se

Texas also recognizes “negligence per se” when a defendant violates a statute designed to protect the class of persons harmed and prevent the type of injury that occurred.

Negligence per se claims are particularly powerful because they establish duty and breach as a matter of law, eliminating the need to prove what a “reasonable person” would have done.

Gross Negligence

Under Texas law, gross negligence requires proof of conduct involving “an extreme degree of risk” and “actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceed with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.”

Actual Awareness: For example, a fact-finder may find operating in “Flash Flood Alley” with a known history of catastrophic flooding, housed 750 vulnerable children during flood season, placed the youngest campers closest to the river in the highest-risk flood zones, and took insufficient precautions after the flood warning was issued to be gross negligence.

Subjective Awareness: Mo-Ranch Assembly successfully evacuated after 24-hour weather monitoring, proving warnings were available and actionable.

Who Can Be Held Accountable

Camp Mystic as Corporate Entity: The primary defendant with direct liability for breach of statutory duties, negligent hiring and supervision of staff, premises liability for unsafe conditions, and breach of contract with parents for providing a safe environment.

Individual Liability: Under recent Texas Supreme Court precedent, individual corporate officers and directors can be held personally liable for their tortious conduct, even when acting in corporate capacity. This may include camp directors and other decision-makers who were directly involved in the dangerous policies and practices.

Insurance Coverage: Texas law requires youth camps to maintain a minimum of $300,000 in liability insurance coverage for each occurrence of negligence. However, gross negligence claims may exceed these limits and pierce certain insurance protections.

Limitations and Defenses

While many camps require liability waivers, these have significant limitations in Texas. Waivers are generally unenforceable for gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Given the nature of Camp Mystic’s failures, liability waivers may not provide protection against the strongest claims.

Additionally, the camp’s violations of specific safety regulations designed to protect children may invalidate certain contractual protections.

Every major advancement in child safety – from car seat requirements to playground standards to pool fencing laws – has roots in tragedies that grieving families transformed into movements for change. The legal system provides the forum where individual losses become collective action, where private grief generates public reform.

The legal process is difficult, emotionally taxing, and cannot heal your wounds. But it can illuminate the failures that led to this tragedy so clearly that no responsible organization could repeat them. It can establish standards so firm that future camp directors will have clear guidance on their obligations. It can create financial consequences so significant that boards of directors across the country will invest in safety rather than risk similar liability.

This is how change happens. Not through good intentions or voluntary reforms, but through grieving families who find the strength to demand accountability, through legal precedents that establish new standards, through verdicts that make dangerous practices economically impossible. The legal system, imperfect as it is, remains one of our most powerful tools for turning tragedy into transformation.

Roundup of Significant Camp Mystic News

Supreme Court Rules Texas Death Row Inmate Can Challenge DNA Testing Law

Understanding Gutierrez v. Saenz

On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in Gutierrez v. Saenz, holding that a Texas death row inmate has the legal standing to challenge the state’s restrictive DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause. This 6-3 decision has important implications for prisoners seeking post-conviction DNA testing and highlights ongoing tensions between state procedural rules and federal constitutional rights.

Background: The Crime and Conviction

Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder in 1998 for his involvement in the killing of Escolastica Harrison, who was stabbed to death in her mobile home. The State’s theory at trial was that Gutierrez wielded one of the two screwdrivers used in the stabbing. The jury convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Gutierrez has consistently maintained that the police coerced his confession that he was inside Harrison’s home, asserting that he never entered it and only thought his accomplices would rob an empty mobile home without harming anyone. His central argument is that he should not have been sentenced to death because he did not “actually cause” Harrison’s death, “intend to kill” her, or “anticipate that a human life would be taken”—all requirements for a death sentence under Texas law.

The Long Fight for DNA Testing

For nearly 15 years, Gutierrez has sought DNA testing of crime-scene evidence, such as Harrison’s nail scrapings, a loose hair, and various blood samples, to prove he was not in the home. This evidence, he argues, would demonstrate his ineligibility for the death penalty, even if he remains guilty of capital murder as a party to the robbery.

Texas’s Article 64 (also referred to as Chapter 64) allows DNA testing if a convicted person establishes by a “preponderance of the evidence” that they “would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained”. However, Texas courts repeatedly denied Gutierrez’s requests for DNA testing:

• 2010: The TCCA reasoned that even if his DNA was not found, it wouldn’t establish his innocence of capital murder because he could still be a party to the robbery that resulted in death.
• 2019: Courts again denied his motion, with the TCCA reiterating that DNA testing was unavailable solely to show death penalty ineligibility.

The Federal Lawsuit and Path to the Supreme Court

Gutierrez then filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that Texas’s DNA testing procedures violated his liberty interests in utilizing state post-conviction procedures. The District Court agreed in part, finding it fundamentally unfair that Texas provides a right to challenge a death sentence via habeas petitions but prevents obtaining DNA testing to support those petitions unless innocence of the underlying crime is established.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this judgment, holding that Gutierrez lacked standing because his claimed injury was not “redressable.” The appeals court reasoned that even if Gutierrez won his constitutional challenge, the prosecutor would be unlikely to allow testing given the state court’s previous rulings.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the Fifth Circuit, holding that Gutierrez does have standing. The Court found the case indistinguishable from Reed v. Goertz (2023), another challenge to Texas’s DNA testing law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, emphasized that standing does not depend on whether a favorable decision will ultimately result in the prosecutor turning over evidence, or if the prosecutor might find another reason to deny the request. The Court rejected what it called an attempt to “manufacture mootness,” stating that “[h]olding otherwise would allow all manner of defendants to manufacture mootness.”

Key Legal Principles

The Gutierrez v. Saenz decision reinforces several important principles:

1. Liberty Interests in Post-Conviction Procedures: The ruling reaffirms that individuals convicted in state court have a “liberty interest in demonstrating [their] innocence with new evidence under state law.”
2. Redressability in Standing Analysis: A ruling in Gutierrez’s favor would provide a remedy for his injury “by removing the allegedly unconstitutional barrier” that Texas DNA-testing laws “erected between Gutierrez and the requested testing.”
3. Federal Court Jurisdiction: The decision clarifies that federal courts can review challenges to state DNA testing procedures when those procedures may unconstitutionally restrict access to evidence.

Dissenting Views

Justice Alito’s dissent argues that the ruling “blatantly alters” the Reed test and “muddies the waters of standing doctrine.” The dissent expressed concern about “decades-long delays” in capital cases and Texas’s “important interest” in finality.

Justice Thomas offered a more fundamental critique, arguing that the Court has “no business intervening in this case” because “Gutierrez’s suit rests on a non-existent ‘liberty interest,'” as the Due Process Clause, as originally understood, protects freedom from physical restraint and natural rights, not “entitlements to government benefits” like state-created post-conviction procedures.

Implications for Texas and Beyond

Access to the courts to pursue a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate certain success with respect to retaining their underlying protected interests. This is because individuals convicted in state court possess a “liberty interest in demonstrating [their] innocence with new evidence under state law,” meaning that a state-created right to post-conviction procedures can “beget yet other rights to procedures essential to the realization of the parent right.”

In Gutierrez v. Saenz, the Supreme Court affirmed that the redressability inquiry for standing in such a claim does not involve “a guess as to whether a favorable court decision will in fact ultimately cause the prosecutor to turn over the evidence.” Rather, a declaratory judgment that removes an “allegedly unconstitutional barrier” between the individual and the requested testing is sufficient to redress the injury.

The Court emphasized that a procedural due process claim “is not mooted by the defendant’s mid-appeal promise that, no matter the result of a lawsuit, the ultimate outcome will not change,” as allowing such an argument would permit defendants to “manufacture mootness.” This approach highlights that procedural due process is fundamentally about the right to a fair proceeding and access to the mechanisms intended to provide relief, and thus, courts must closely attend to the nature of the asserted constitutional right in Section 1983 cases, which in Gutierrez involved the denial of access to requested DNA evidence.

The Gutierrez v. Saenz ruling has significant implications for criminal justice in Texas and potentially nationwide:

1. Enhanced Access to Federal Courts: For Texas inmates, the ruling provides a clear path to challenge state DNA testing laws in federal court if they believe those laws unconstitutionally restrict their access to evidence.
2. Burden on State Prosecutors: It means that prosecutors cannot simply deny standing by stating they will not comply with a favorable court ruling.
3. Potential for More Litigation: This could lead to more federal §1983 litigation challenging the procedural aspects of Texas’s post-conviction DNA testing statute.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court’s decision does not guarantee that Gutierrez will receive DNA testing. Rather, it ensures that his constitutional challenge to Texas’s DNA testing procedures can proceed in federal court. The case now returns to the lower courts, where the merits of Gutierrez’s due process claim will be considered.

For Gutierrez himself, who has been on death row for over 25 years, this represents a significant but incremental victory. Shawn Nolan, a lawyer for Gutierrez, released this statement: “Today, Ruben Gutierrez is one step closer to proving that he was wrongfully sentenced to death.”

Broader Context

The Gutierrez v. Saenz case highlights the ongoing debate about the proper balance between finality in criminal proceedings and ensuring that potentially innocent individuals—or those wrongfully sentenced to death—have meaningful opportunities to prove their claims. It also underscores the complex interplay between state criminal procedures and federal constitutional rights.

As DNA technology continues to advance and play a crucial role in criminal justice, cases like Gutierrez v. Saenz will likely continue to shape how courts balance the competing interests of finality, federalism, and fundamental fairness in the American legal system.

The decision serves as a reminder that procedural hurdles should not become insurmountable barriers to justice, particularly in capital cases where the stakes could not be higher.

After 140 days of committee hearings, floor debates, public testimony, and political maneuvering inside the state Capitol, the 89th Texas Legislature wrapped up its regular session — leaving behind a wave of new Texas laws and even more unfinished business.

Lawmakers passed more than 1,300 bills—many addressing criminal, family, and personal injury law—while over 8,000 others failed to advance, reflecting a lower-than-usual passage rate of roughly 14 percent.

Among the most widely watched developments of the session was the fate of Senate Bill 3, a high-profile proposal to ban THC products that was vetoed by Governor Greg Abbott just before the midnight deadline on June 22 — a move that both stunned and divided state leadership while keeping Texas’ billion-dollar hemp industry alive for now. The governor’s veto foreshadows a looming special session, where the regulation of THC and other contentious issues will take center stage

In our 2025 legislative update, we take a look at 47 of the most interesting or impactful new Texas laws that made it past the finish line, as well as key proposals that failed to pass but remain on the radar for future sessions. Where there is political momentum and public interest, there is always the potential for revival.

New Texas Laws

1. Trey’s Law: Sexual Abuse Victims Will Not Be Silenced
SB 835, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Senate Bill 835 – commonly referred to as “Trey’s Law” – bans the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims of sexual abuse. The bill is named after Trey Carlock, a Dallas native who was abused as a child and later died by suicide after being required to sign an NDA as part of a settlement. The law applies to both child and adult victims and will also void existing NDAs that have previously prevented survivors from speaking out. Read more about Trey’s Law.

2. Grayson’s Law: Intoxication Manslaughter Penalties for Illegal Aliens
HB 2017, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

House Bill 2017, known as “Grayson’s Law,” increases the mandatory minimum sentence for intoxication manslaughter from 2 years to 10 years if the defendant was unlawfully present in the United States at the time of the offense. Named in honor of Grayson Davis, a young victim killed by a suspected drunk driver without legal status, the law also bars those convicted under this provision from receiving community supervision, deferred adjudication, parole, or mandatory supervision until they have served at least 10 calendar years — without credit for good conduct time

3. Ultimate Punishment for Attempting to Kill Police
HB 1871, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law makes attempting to kill a peace officer in the line of duty a capital felony. That means it carries the same punishment range as capital murder — life without parole or, in some cases, the death penalty.

4. Tougher Laws for Sex Offenses
HB 1422, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation expands protections for victims of sex crimes and increases penalties for offenders — especially those targeting children. Key provisions include:

• Creates the new criminal offense of “continuous sexual abuse of adults” for individuals who commit multiple sex offenses against two or more victims within a 30-day period. This extends protections that previously only existed for child victims.
• Harsher Sentencing: Increases the severity of punishment for repeat and serial sex offenders by allowing courts to impose consecutive (stacked) sentences for multiple sexual assault convictions, regardless of the victim’s age. It also increases the category of punishment for certain offense if the offender has prior convictions and makes certain sex offenses punishable by life in prison if specific conditions are met.
• Restrictions on Probation and Parole: Offenders convicted of certain sex crimes are ineligible for probation, deferred adjudication or parole.

5. Crackdown on Child-Like Sex Dolls
HB 1443, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

House Bill 1443 creates new criminal offenses targeting the possession and promotion of child-like sex dolls — anatomically correct devices that resemble children and are intended for sexual use. Possessing or promoting such dolls is now a felony offense in Texas. Promotion is a second-degree felony punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison. Possession with intent to promote is a third-degree felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison. Simple possession is a state jail felony punishable by up to six months in a state jail facility.

6. E-Cigarette Crackdown
SB 2024, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation tightens regulations on e-cigarette products to curb youth vaping by expanding the definition to include all vape substances—nicotine or not—and banning marketing tactics that appeal to minors, such as cartoon imagery, candy flavors, and products disguised as toys or school supplies. The law also prohibits e-cigarettes made in China or hostile nations and bans harmful additives like cannabinoids and tianeptine. Violations will now be classified by a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in county jail.

7. Bail Reform: Stricter Rules for Repeat and Violent Offenders
SB 9, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Senate Bill 9 aims to enhance public safety and improve consistency in pretrial release decisions. Key provisions of the new law include:

• Magistrates must use the Public Safety Report System (PSRS) – a centralized tool that compiles criminal history and risk data – before granting bail in felony cases, ensuring that decisions are informed by consistent, evidence-based information.
• Restrictions on Personal Bonds: The new Texas law restricts the use of personal bonds for individuals charged with violent or repeat offenses, especially those currently on parole or community supervision for violent crimes.
• Limits on Judicial Authority: Magistrates who are not higher court judges are prohibited from reducing or modifying bond amounts set by district court judges, and prosecutors can appeal bail decisions they consider too low, even if a judge has deemed the defendant safe for release.

8. Bail Judicial Transparency and Oversight
HB 75, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

House Bill 75 tightens bail procedures by requiring magistrates to make written findings—especially if no probable cause is found—and expands use of the Public Safety Reporting System (PSRS) to give courts more criminal history information. The bill also shifts oversight of charitable bail organizations to the Office of Court Administration for statewide consistency and clarifies prosecutors’ ability to appeal bail decisions.

9. No Bail for Some Felonies
SJR 5, November Ballot

Senate Joint Resolution No. 5 (SJR 5) is a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Texas courts to deny bail for certain serious felony offenses if the prosecution can show that bail would not reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance in court or community safety. Offenses that could be considered for denied bail include violent crimes such as murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, and continuous trafficking of persons, among others.

The resolution was passed by both the Texas Senate and House and has been filed with the Secretary of State for placement on the November 4, 2025, ballot. The governor’s signature is not required for constitutional amendments – it goes directly to Texas voters to decide at the next general election.

10. No Public Funds for Nonprofit Bail Assistance
SB 40, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Senate Bill 40 prohibits Texas counties, cities, and other local governments from using taxpayer money to fund nonprofit organizations that post bail for criminal defendants. The law is a response to concerns about public dollars underwriting bail efforts, particularly in places like Harris County. Under SB 40, any taxpayer or resident can sue for injunctive relief if a local government violates the law — and recover attorney’s fees if successful. While the bill imposes no new criminal penalties or costs at the state level, it may limit pretrial release options in communities that previously partnered with nonprofit bail funds.

11. Cosmetologists: Domestic Violence Awareness Training
HB 837, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation requires students and licensed professionals in the beauty industry to complete instruction on identifying and assisting victims of domestic abuse. The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation must ensure it’s part of both school curriculums and continuing education. By equipping beauty professionals—who often have close, regular contact with clients—lawmakers hope to increase early detection and support for victims.

12. Bank “Jugging” is Now a Felony
HB 1902, Effective Sept 1, 2025

Over the past several years, a crime trend called “bank jugging” or “jugging” has grown in popularity — when a suspect follows someone from a bank, ATM, or financial institution with the intent to steal, often targeting cash withdrawals. Lawmakers have now made that conduct a standalone offense. It is generally a state jail felony, punished by up to a year behind bars, but penalties can increase significantly — up to life in prison — if the jugging is committed in conjunction with burglary or robbery. This legislative change allows prosecutors to specifically charge jugging, rather than relying solely on broader robbery or burglary statutes.

13. Increased Penalties for Organized Retail Theft
SB 1300, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

In an effort to deter organized retail theft, this legislation increases penalties for such offenses in Texas. The law raises the punishment for higher-value thefts: stealing goods worth $300,000 or more is now a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison and a fine up to $250,000. Previously, this would have been a second-degree felony.

The bill also simplifies prosecution. Prosecutors no longer need to itemize every stolen product in the indictment; they can charge offenders based on the total monetary value stolen from a merchant. Additionally, unaltered price tags are now accepted as evidence of value and ownership, and prior theft offenses can be used to show intent or participation in organized theft rings.

14. Special Appointments in Suits Affecting Child-Parent Relationship
HB 2530, Effective Sept.1, 2025

This law clarifies and updates the process for appointing amicus attorneys and other special roles involved in family court cases involving the parent-child relationship. It is intended to streamline family court procedures by establishing clear standards for when and how courts can appoint amicus attorneys, ensuring these appointments are necessary to protect the best interests of the child. The court must consider the parties’ ability to pay reasonable fees and balance the child’s interests against the cost of the parties.

15. New Rules for Non-Parent Custody
HB 2350, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation sets clearer standards for non-parents, such as aunts, uncles, grandparents or family friends who want to file for custody of a child. It requires these caregivers to have provided exclusive care for the child for at least six months before filing for custody. If both of the child’s parents are deceased, the law expands eligibility to include more distant relatives – up to fourth-degree relatives, such as great uncles, great aunts, or cousins once removed. By requiring non-parent caregivers to have provided exclusive care for at least six months before filing for custody, the law helps ensure that only those who have established a significant, stable relationship with the child can initiate custody proceedings.

16. Timely Billing for Injury-Related Healthcare
HB 4145, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law requires healthcare providers to send billing statements to a patient’s attorney, if represented, within 11 months of providing personal-injury-related services. It addresses a loophole that previously allowed providers to lose payment rights if bills were sent to attorneys instead of patients within the required timeframe. The law ensures providers are fairly compensated while aligning billing practices with common legal procedures in personal injury cases.

17. New Rules for Preserving DWI Toxicology Evidence
SB1660, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Senate Bill 1660 establishes clear requirements for the retention and destruction of toxicological evidence in intoxication-related criminal cases, such as DWIs. Crime laboratories must annually notify the appropriate county prosecutor’s office of their possession of such evidence, providing both the date of receipt and the date the retention period will expire. Toxicological evidence must be preserved for the length of a defendant’s sentence or supervision, or—if there is no conviction—until acquittal or dismissal with prejudice. Once the retention period expires, evidence cannot be destroyed without first notifying the prosecutor, who then has 60 or 90 days (depending on the offense) to object in writing. The law strengthens communication protocols between labs and prosecutors to prevent premature disposal of evidence.

18. New Felony for Obscene Child Imagery
SB 20, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation makes it a criminal offense to possess, view, or promote visual material that obscenely depicts a child—whether the material involves a real child, an animation, a cartoon, or an AI-generated image. The new law is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in a state jail facility. If the defendant has previously been convicted once for similar offenses, the charge is elevated to a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If previously convicted two or more times for similar offenses, it becomes a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

19. Deadly Conduct Law Amended for Peace Officers
SB1637, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Under current law, a person commits the offense of deadly conduct if they knowingly point a firearm at or in the direction of another individual, regardless of whether they believe the firearm is loaded. This legislation amends the law to exclude peace officers from this provision when they are lawfully acting in their official capacity. As a result, peace officers will not be charged with deadly conduct for pointing a firearm at or in the direction of another person while performing their lawful duties.

20. Stricter Penalties for Election Fraud
HB 5115, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Under this new law, knowingly counting invalid votes, altering reports to include invalid votes, refusing to count valid votes, or altering reports to exclude valid votes are now explicitly classified as election fraud. The bill raises the general penalty for election fraud from a Class A misdemeanor to a second-degree felony, and if the offense is committed by an elected official acting in their official capacity, the penalty is elevated to a first-degree felony.

21. Protecting Officers from Frivolous Suits
SB 2750, Effective Immediately

This legislation amends the Texas Penal Code to provide clear legal protection for peace officers and correctional facility guards who use less-lethal force weapons—such as stun guns, chemical sprays, or impact devices—in the course of their official duties. The new law establishes that officers are justified in using such force if their actions are in substantial compliance with their training, helping to prevent unwarranted lawsuits and ensuring officers can safely de-escalate situations without fear of undue legal consequences.

22. AG to Prosecute Trafficking if DA’s Don’t
HB 45, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law mandates that the Texas Attorney General must step in to prosecute human trafficking cases if a local district attorney fails to act within six months of receiving a law enforcement report. The law ensures that serious trafficking offenses are not neglected due to prosecutorial inaction and mandates law enforcement to notify both the local DA and the AG simultaneously. If the DA doesn’t move forward, the AG is required to takeover—unless a judge confirms prosecution is underway.

23. No Parole for Traffickers of Children or Disabled Individuals
HB 2306, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

Under this new law, those convicted and sentenced for specified trafficking crimes—including cases where the victim is a child or a person with disabilities—are ineligible for release on parole, joining the ranks of offenders already barred from parole for the most serious violent crimes.

24. Harsher Penalties for Criminals Wearing Body Armor
HB 108, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation increases penalties for individuals who commit crimes while wearing metal or body armor. If used during a Class A misdemeanor or felony (excluding first-degree felonies), the offense is bumped up one category — raising, for example, a third-degree felony to a second-degree.

25. Expanded Support for Sexual Assault Survivors
HB 47, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new law strengthens victim protections by ensuring they receive information about their rights, access to victim compensation, and the opportunity to participate in the parole process. It covers reimbursement for post-exam medical care, expands certification for sexual assault nurse examiners, requires hospitals to train staff, and mandates rideshare companies conduct sex offender background checks.

26. Organized Oilfield Theft Prevention Unit
HB 48, Effective Immediately

This legislation establishes a dedicated oilfield theft prevention unit within the Texas Department of Public Safety, tasked with enforcing laws, conducting training, and developing strategies to crack down on the growing problem of oilfield theft in regions like the Permian Basin—a crime estimated to cost the state billions annually. The new unit will also run public awareness campaigns and report biannually to the legislature on its progress, aiming to dismantle organized criminal networks targeting energy infrastructure.

27. Fentanyl Child Endangerment Act
HB 166, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new law broadens the existing offense of endangering a child or elderly/ disabled person via methamphetamine exposure to include fentanyl and any controlled substances labeled Penalty Group 1-B. This law specifically excludes lawful medical use, such as fentanyl administered by an anesthesiologist.

28. Life of the Mother Act
SB 3, Effective Immediately

The Life of the Mother Act clarifies Texas’s abortion ban exceptions, making it clear that doctors can legally perform abortions in medical emergencies to save a woman’s life or prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function. The law aligns language across Texas statutes, specifies that the threat to the mother does not need to be “imminent,” and provides legal protections for physicians acting within these guidelines. It also requires continuing education for doctors and attorneys on the law’s nuances.

29. Criminal Penalties for School Vendor Conflicts
HB 210, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new law makes it a criminal offense for vendors to do business with school districts or charter schools when board members or any close relations hold significant financial stakes or receive gifts that cost greater than $250. The purpose of this legislation is to strengthen ethical standards and ensure fair use of taxpayer resources.

30. Credit Card Fraud Cases Easier to Enforce
HB 272, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This legislation expands venue rules for prosecuting the offense of fraudulent use and possession of credit/ debit card information. It does this by allowing cases to be filed in the county where the offense occurred or in the county where the victim resides. This also enhances prosecutorial flexibility and victim accessibility for these types of crimes by simplifying the proof of intent by treating them like other fraud offenses. This law does not create new crimes, but rather makes existing ones easier to enforce

31. Crackdown on AI-Generated Sex Content with Minors
HB 581 Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law cracks down and updates rules on AI-generated sexual content involving minors by imposing clear requirements on platforms. These include age verification for users, consent and adult status for image sources, privacy protections on user data, and increased civil fines for violations. It defines “artificial sexual material harmful to minors” as material in which a real person is distinguishable by appearance and applies to commercial entities that provide an online tool to create such material or make such material publicly available.

32. Asp-Morgan Act
HB 654, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

The Asp-Morgan Act adds to current laws under the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code by allowing certain hunters charged with illegal deer hunting – specifically those who inadvertently violate antler spread rules for deer – to have their case dismissed under specified conditions. The key requirements include a self-report, plea, course completion, no prior record, and proper carcass disposal.

33. Human Trafficking Prevention and First Responder Training
HB 742, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This bill strengthens Texas’s efforts to combat human trafficking by requiring comprehensive training for first responders to recognize and respond to trafficking situations. This bill also mandates that certain health care facilities provide clear information about human trafficking to patients and visitors to increase public awareness. Additionally, it offers protections for facility employees who report suspected trafficking, shielding them from retaliation and encouraging proactive intervention.

34. Human Trafficking Prevention in Health Care Settings
HB 754, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This bill strengthens Texas’s response to human trafficking by requiring medical assistants in certain health care facilities to complete specialized training on how to recognize and report trafficking. The bill also mandates that these facilities display clear, multilingual signs with information on identifying and reporting suspected trafficking, making resources visible to both staff and the public. Importantly, this bill protects employees from retaliation if they report suspected trafficking in good faith, encouraging a safer environment and supporting early detection and intervention in trafficking cases

35. Confidentiality for Protective Order Applicants
HB 793, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new legislation in Texas strengthens the confidentiality of personal information for individuals who apply for or are protected by a protective order. This law mandates that courts honor requests to keep sensitive details such as home addresses and contact information confidential and shielded from public access. This enhanced privacy measure is designed to protect survivors from potential harm or retaliation, fostering a safer environment and encouraging more individuals to seek legal protection without fear of exposing their personal information.

36. Legal Protection for Cave Businesses
HB 1130, Effective Immediately

Texas’s new cavern liability law provides limited legal protection to businesses that operate commercial caverns for recreational or educational purposes. Under this legislation, operators are shielded from lawsuits for injuries, emotional distress, death, property damage, or other losses sustained during cavern activities, as long as a clearly worded warning sign prescribed by statute is posted at every cavern entrance. However, this protection does not apply if harm results from the operator’s negligence, such as failing to address known hazards or inadequately training employees, or from intentional misconduct. The law is designed to balance the promotion of cavern tourism with the need for participant safety and accountability

37. Texas Limits CPS Removals for “Neglect”
HB 1151, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This law strengthens protections for parental rights when it comes to making medical decisions for their children. Under this legislation, parents cannot lose custody or have their parental rights terminated simply for making reasonable choices about their child’s medical care, such as declining psychotropic medications or choosing alternative treatments, unless those decisions create a substantial risk of harm to the child. The law also narrows the definition of neglect, limiting the circumstances under which Child Protective Services can intervene. At the same time, it preserves the state’s ability to step in when a child’s safety is genuinely at risk, striking a careful balance between protecting families and ensuring child welfare.

38. Tougher Penalties for Misuse of Official Information
HB 2001, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

This new law elevates penalties for the offense of misuse of information based on the net pecuniary gain to the offender. Abuse cases less than $150,000 remain a third-degree felony; abuses between $150,000-$300,000 are upgraded to a second-degree felony; and abuse of $300,000 or more becomes a first-degree felony. This law addresses disparity, targets corruption and insider abuse, and is expected to have no major budget impact on state or local governments

39. Felony Charges for Certain Court Order Violations
HB 2073, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

House Bill 2073 increases criminal penalties for violating court orders or bond conditions in cases involving family violence, child abuse, sexual assault, indecent assault, stalking, or trafficking. While most violations remain a Class A misdemeanor, repeat or aggravated violations, including those following a conviction or involving assault, are now prosecuted as felonies, with penalties ranging up to a third-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison. The law aims to better protect victims and deter repeat offenders by treating serious or repeated violations more harshly.

40. Video Testimony for Elderly and Disabled Witnesses
HB 2348, Effective Sept. 1, 2025

A new Texas law makes it easier for the testimony of elderly or disabled individuals to be preserved and presented in criminal cases. Courts can now order that depositions from these vulnerable witnesses be video recorded if either side requests it. This change helps ensure that important testimony is not lost simply because a witness is unable to appear in court physically. To maintain the integrity of the process, the video must be properly authenticated, and the person who operated the recording equipment must be available to confirm its accuracy. This update streamlines the use of video testimony, making it more accessible while still protecting the rights of all parties involved.

The devastating Memorial Day weekend tragedy at Grapevine Lake that claimed the life of 18-year-old Ava Moore presents multiple avenues for civil litigation and raises complex questions about liability, negligent entrustment, and insurance coverage. As the Moore family grieves the loss of their daughter — an Air Force Academy Preparatory School graduate weeks away from basic training — they face critical decisions regarding potential wrongful death and survival action claims.

In this article, our personal injury attorneys explain the legal implications surrounding the Grapevine Lake accident, including who may be held liable, the potential for wrongful death and survival action claims, the challenges involved in securing compensation in boating and jet ski incidents and what steps grieving families should take to protect their rights and pursue justice.

What Happened on Grapevine Lake?

On May 25, 2025, at approximately 5:20 p.m., Ava Moore was kayaking near Oak Grove Park on Grapevine Lake when she was struck from behind by a jet ski operated by 21-year-old Daikerlyn Alejandra Gonzalez-Gonzalez.

According to arrest affidavits, the jet ski was traveling at a high rate of speed and dangerously close to other people in the water. Witnesses told investigators that Moore and other kayakers tried to paddle away before she was struck from behind.

Lisa Scrabeck, a witness at the lake, helped render aid to Ava Moore after she was pulled ashore. She checked for a pulse and heartbeat and confirmed that Moore was wearing a life jacket, which was removed before CPR began. Despite immediate medical attention, Moore died from severe head trauma at the hospital.

The jet ski driver fled the scene with 21-year-old Maikel Coello Perozo, crashing into multiple vehicles during their escape. Police found both suspects at a Dallas residence with packed suitcases — suggesting they did not plan to return home anytime soon.

Who Can Be Held Responsible in a Boating or Jet Ski Accident?

In the aftermath of the Grapevine Lake accident, many people are wondering who can be held responsible for Moore’s tragic death. Wrongful death cases involving personal watercraft can involve multiple parties, depending on the facts of the incident. Responsibility may fall on the operator, the craft’s owner, or even a rental company — particularly if safety regulations were violated or the watercraft was negligently entrusted to an unqualified or reckless driver.

Below is a breakdown of potential civil liability in fatal boating and jet ski accidents, with a focus on direct operator responsibility, negligent entrustment by private owners, and possible liability by rental companies.

1. Direct Operator Liability

The woman accused of operating the jet ski, Daikerlyn Alejandra Gonzalez-Gonzalez, faces multiple criminal charges, including second-degree felony manslaughter charges, reckless operation and excessive speed of a personal watercraft, and leaving the scene of an accident involving death. These serious charges not only carry criminal consequences but also serve as strong evidence for civil liability under several legal theories:

Negligence Per Se:
In many recreational boating accident cases, victims may pursue civil claims under the doctrine of negligence per se. This legal principle holds that if an individual or entity violates a law intended to protect public safety — and that violation results in harm — the violation itself may be presumed to be the cause of the injury. Gonzalez’s alleged violations of Texas personal watercraft regulations provide a compelling foundation for a negligence per se claim.

Reckless/Wanton Misconduct:

Eyewitness Lisa Scrabeck reported seeing the women on the jet ski “driving recklessly” throughout the day. According to the arrest warrant, multiple witnesses stated that the suspect “recklessly made several passes along the shoreline with wanton disregard for the safety of others and at a speed and manner that endangered those in the area.” This type of behavior may rise to the level of gross negligence or wanton misconduct, further strengthening the case for civil liability.

2. Negligent Entrustment Claims

In addition to holding the jet ski operator accountable, liability may extend to the person or entity who allowed the operator to use the watercraft in the first place. This legal concept is known as negligent entrustment — when someone provides access to a dangerous instrument, like a jet ski, knowing or having reason to know the user is unfit to operate it safely.

Depending on who owned the jet ski involved in the Grapevine Lake accident, either a private individual or a rental company could face civil liability. Authorities with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department are currently investigating the ownership of the craft. If it turns out that the watercraft was entrusted to an unqualified or reckless driver, the owner — whether private or a rental company — could be held responsible for the fatal outcome.

Jet Ski Owner Liability: If a boat or jet ski owner allows a person to operate a vehicle in an unsafe manner, the owner may be held responsible for negligent entrustment. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department officials are investigating the ownership of the craft. If Gonzalez was not the owner, the actual owner could face liability for:

• Entrusting the watercraft to an unlicensed or inexperienced operator
• Failing to provide adequate safety instructions
• Knowing or having reason to know of the operator’s propensity for reckless behavior

If Daikerlyn Gonzalez-Gonzalez was not the owner, the individual who allowed her to use the jet ski could face serious legal consequences under these principles.

Rental Company Liability: Law enforcement is still determining if the jet ski was rented. Even if that fact does not become central in this case, rental company liability is a key factor in many boating accident claims. Rental facilities have a legal duty to ensure every vessel is properly inspected, maintained, and safely entrusted to qualified users. If the jet ski was rented, the company could face liability for:

• Negligent entrustment by rental facility if the facility did not provide safety instruction or have proper safety instructions posted; if the rental facility did not conduct a proper demonstration or check ride; or if the renter is not 18 or does not have boater safety education credentials.
• Failure to verify operator competency
• Inadequate safety briefing or training

Insurance Coverage for Boats & Jet Skis: Texas Doesn’t Require It

Unlike automobile insurance, which is mandatory, Texas does not require insurance for personal watercraft or boats. This regulatory gap can leave accident victims with limited options for financial recovery. Although insurance isn’t legally required, lenders often mandate coverage if the watercraft is financed.

Insurance for Rentals

Jet ski rental companies, on the other hand, typically carry comprehensive liability insurance as part of their business operations. These policies may include:

• Third-party liability for bodily injury and property damage
• Coverage for damage to the rental equipment while under customer control
• General liability for incidents occurring on the premises
• Professional liability for claims involving inadequate training or instruction

If the jet ski involved in the Grapevine Lake accident was rented rather than privately owned, this could significantly improve the family’s ability to recover damages. Businesses that rent out watercraft — including marinas, docks, and yacht clubs — are strongly encouraged to carry Personal Watercraft (PWC) insurance, which typically includes liability protection for bodily injuries caused by a rented vessel.

Potential Coverage Sources

Because Texas law does not require watercraft insurance, it’s vital to identify every possible coverage source after a boating or jet ski accident. These may include:

• Rental Company Insurance:
  If the jet ski was rented, the rental company’s commercial liability policy is often the most substantial and reliable source of coverage. These policies usually include high liability limits to cover injuries, death, or property damage caused by the rented watercraft.
• Owner’s Watercraft Insurance Policy:
  |If the jet ski was privately owned, the owner’s boat or personal watercraft policy may offer liability coverage. This can include payments for bodily injury, death, or property damage, as well as legal defense costs if a lawsuit is filed.
• Homeowner’s Insurance:
  In some cases, small boats or personal watercraft may be covered under a homeowner’s policy. However, this coverage is typically limited in scope and may not include liability for accidents occurring away from the home.
• Operator’s Personal Liability Coverage:
  Even in the absence of dedicated watercraft insurance, the operator may have umbrella liability or homeowner’s liability insurance that provides secondary coverage for injuries or damages caused while operating a jet ski.

Why It Matters

The absence of mandatory watercraft insurance in Texas makes uncovering all potential insurance policies critical in wrongful death and serious injury cases. Just like on the road, accidents happen on the water — and victims should not be left without a path to recovery simply because coverage wasn’t required.

Unique Challenges in Grapevine Lake Jet Ski Accident

The civil litigation process arising from the Grapevine Lake jet ski crash faces a number of complex challenges — primarily due to the legal status of the individuals involved. Both suspects are Venezuelan nationals who reportedly entered the United States illegally and are now subject to ICE detainers and removal proceedings. These immigration issues create several serious obstacles for victims or their families seeking civil justice and financial compensation:

1. Limited Assets Available for Judgment Satisfaction
Individuals without lawful immigration status are often not financially established in the U.S. and may lack insurable interests, verifiable income, or significant assets such as real estate or vehicles. Even if a civil judgment is obtained against a liable party, there may be little to no property or funds to seize in satisfaction of that judgment.

2. Risk of Deportation Complicating Collection Efforts
Because both suspects are in removal proceedings, there is a real possibility that one or both may be deported before a civil case is resolved. Deportation can stall or completely undermine the ability to collect a judgment, particularly if the individual returns to a country with limited legal cooperation or no reciprocal enforcement of U.S. civil judgments. Once removed, tracking, serving, or compelling their participation in a U.S. court proceeding becomes exceedingly difficult.

3. Urgency of Discovery and Asset Preservation
Given these risks, time is of the essence in any civil case involving defendants facing removal. Attorneys representing the victim’s family would likely need to pursue expedited discovery, including early depositions and aggressive efforts to identify and freeze any assets before they are transferred or rendered inaccessible. This may include:

• Filing for pre-judgment writs of garnishment or attachment
• Requesting temporary restraining orders to prevent asset dissipation
• Subpoenaing financial institutions or third parties for asset information

In short, while there may be strong grounds for civil liability, collecting any damages from these defendants may prove extremely difficult. This makes it all the more important to identify alternative avenues for recovery — such as insurance coverage through a rental company or third-party liability — and to act quickly before immigration proceedings interfere with the litigation process.

Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Actions

Wrongful Death Claims

Under the Texas Wrongful Death Act, certain surviving family members may recover damages for the personal losses they suffer as a result of their loved one’s death. These claims are designed to compensate the surviving family — not the deceased’s estate.

Eligible Claimants
Only the surviving spouse, children, or parents of the deceased may file a wrongful death claim in Texas. In this case, Moore’s parents are legally permitted to bring the claim.

Recoverable Damages:

• Mental anguish, emotional pain, and suffering
• Loss of love, companionship, comfort, and society
• Loss of future earning capacity (especially significant given Moore’s military career path)
• Funeral and burial expenses
• Exemplary (punitive) damages, if the facts show gross negligence or willful misconduct

Survival Action Claims

A survival action is brought on behalf of the decedent’s estate and addresses the harm suffered by the deceased between the time of injury and death. Unlike wrongful death claims, survival actions do not compensate surviving family members directly — rather, any recovery becomes part of the estate and is distributed according to a will or intestacy laws.

Recoverable Damages:

• Conscious pain and suffering experienced before death
• Medical expenses related to the fatal injury
• Lost wages between the time of injury and death
• Property damage (e.g., kayak or personal belongings)
• Funeral expenses (if not already recovered through a wrongful death claim)

Statute of Limitations

Both wrongful death and survival action claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations in Texas. This means a lawsuit must be filed within two years of the date of death.

For Moore — who tragically passed away on May 25, 2025 — the deadline to file either claim is May 25, 2027.

Additional Causes of Action

In addition to direct operator liability and negligent entrustment, several other legal theories may support civil claims in the Grapevine Lake accident, depending on the specific facts uncovered during the investigation.

1. Premises Liability – Lake/Park Management

If the entity responsible for managing Grapevine Lake or Oak Grove Park failed to take reasonable steps to ensure public safety, they may be held liable under a premises liability theory. Potential failures may include:

• Inadequate patrolling of waterways to monitor reckless behavior
• Failure to enforce speed restrictions or designated safety zones
• Lack of adequate signage or warning systems for boaters and swimmers
• Failure to properly separate conflicting recreational activities (e.g., swimming areas vs. high-speed watercraft zones)

2. Dram Shop Liability

Under Texas Dram Shop laws, bars and restaurants can be held legally responsible if they serve alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual who later causes injury or death. While it has not yet been determined whether alcohol played a role in this incident, liability may arise if it’s shown that the jet ski operator was overserved and obtained alcohol from a licensed establishment prior to the crash.

3. Product Liability

If a mechanical failure contributed to the accident, product liability or maintenance negligence claims may also be viable. These could include:

• Manufacturing defects in the jet ski that made it unsafe for operation
• Negligence by a maintenance provider in inspecting, repairing, or servicing the watercraft
• Failure of safety equipment, such as throttle controls, kill switches, or life vests, due to design or production flaws

Strategic Litigation Considerations

Given the urgency of potential deportation proceedings, several critical steps must be taken immediately to preserve the viability of any future litigation. Asset investigation represents the most time-sensitive priority, as counsel must locate and preserve all potential sources of recovery before defendants leave the jurisdiction. This includes identifying bank accounts, real estate holdings, business interests, and any other assets that could satisfy a judgment.

Simultaneously, comprehensive insurance discovery must be undertaken to identify all applicable policies that might provide coverage for the incident. This includes not only obvious liability policies but also umbrella coverage, marine insurance, and any specialty policies that defendants or related entities may carry. The identification of insurance coverage often proves crucial to meaningful recovery in maritime accident cases.

Evidence preservation cannot be delayed, as witness memories fade and physical evidence deteriorates or disappears. Securing detailed witness statements from all available parties, obtaining surveillance footage from nearby establishments or vessels, and documenting the physical condition of the vessel and accident scene are essential steps that become increasingly difficult with time. The transient nature of the maritime environment makes prompt evidence collection particularly critical.

Finally, the retention of qualified experts should begin immediately to ensure their availability and to begin the process of accident reconstruction while evidence remains fresh. Marine safety experts can analyze the vessel’s condition and operational procedures, accident reconstruction specialists can determine causation and fault allocation, and economic experts will be necessary to quantify damages. Early expert involvement often proves invaluable in developing case strategy and identifying additional avenues of investigation.

The Moore family deserves justice for their tragic loss, and the civil justice system provides the primary avenue for accountability when the criminal system alone cannot adequately address the full scope of harm caused by such reckless conduct.

Loved One Killed or Injured In a Boating Accident? Contact Us.

Varghese Summersett is a premier personal injury firm serving clients across the state of Texas. With offices in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston, our team is strategically positioned to handle serious injury and wrongful death cases wherever they arise — from major metropolitan areas to smaller communities throughout the Lone Star State.

We are known for delivering exceptional, client-focused representation rooted in experience, compassion, and results. We understand the physical, emotional, and financial toll of catastrophic injuries and wrongful death. Call 817-203-2220 for a free consultation with an experienced boating accident attorney today.