ILNews

Riverboat not covered by Jones Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A casino riverboat that is indefinitely moored to the shore isn't considered a vessel in navigation under the federal Jones Act, so a riverboat worker can't bring a claim for compensation of injuries under the act, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In RDI/Caesar's Riverboat Casino, Inc and M/V Glory of Rome v. Tina Conder, No. 31A04-0802-CV-40, Caesar's Riverboat Casino appealed the trial court order granting Tina Conder's motion for partial summary judgment under the Jones Act and denying Caesar's motion to dismiss her complaint. Conder worked as a table games dealer in the casino beginning in 2003 and was repeatedly bitten by fleas during her employment there. She claims the large doses of steroids used to treat the bites caused her to have a heart attack. She filed a complaint against Caesar's seeking compensation for her injuries based on the Jones Act, or as a Sieracki seaman.

The Court of Appeals looked to other jurisdictions in determining that indefinitely moored riverboats aren't covered under the Jones Act. The riverboats fail the first part of the U.S. Supreme Court's two-prong test for determining whether an employee is a Jones Act seaman because the riverboats aren't "vessels in navigation."

The Caesar's riverboat has been moored and stationary since August 2002 and the casino's director of marine operations testified the riverboat isn't transporting passengers, cargo, or equipment on the river anymore and is now a platform to conduct gaming activities.

The judges don't agree with Conder's argument that because the Coast Guard continues to inspect the riverboat and that Caesar's hasn't given up its Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection, the riverboat is a vessel of navigation under the Jones Act. Many other courts have considered indefinitely moored casinos that were registered with and inspected by the Coast Guard and ruled they aren't vessels in navigation, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

The ship owner's intent with the ship, which in this case is to have the ship indefinitely moored, is part and parcel of the nature of the ship, the judge continued. The intent to never sail again leads to a conclusion that the Jones Act doesn't apply.

The appellate court reversed the trial court in part and remanded with instructions to dismiss Conder's Jones Act claim with prejudice and for further proceedings on her Sieracki seaman claim.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT