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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT