APPELLATE COURT REMANDED CASE TO TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE IF PORTION OF RIVER WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED WAS NAVIGABLE EVEN THOUGH PARTIES STIPULATED THAT THE BOAT CRUISED ON A NAVIGABLE WATERWAY
Robbin Weaver, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HollywoodCasino-Aurora, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-2862
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13870
February 13, 2001, Argued
June 21, 2001, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee was injured on a riverboat casino owned by defendant employer. She sued for relief under general maritime jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333, and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688, et seq. The employee appealed the causation ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the denial of maintenance and cure, and the denial of attorneys' fees.
OVERVIEW: The parties stipulated that the boat cruised on a navigable waterway, though the employer's counsel stated that the boat could only travel 300 yards, since there was a dam on one side, and a bridge on the other side. Over the employer's objection, the district court found that it had jurisdiction under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688 et seq., but it did not specifically consider its general maritime law jurisdiction, and the employer did not appeal jurisdiction under the Jones Act. The court of appeals, sua sponte, considered the jurisdictional issues, and remanded the case to the district court for a determination whether the portion of the river where the employee's injury occurred was navigable water. The dam and bridge suggested the gambling boat was located, entirely within one state, in a portion of the river that could not be used as a highway for maritime commerce. As the boat was a commercial boat engaged in transporting passengers for profit, an injury to a crew member would disrupt its participation in maritime commerce. The same navigability inquiry was necessary to determine if there was a sufficient relationship to navigable waters for Jones Act jurisdiction.
OUTCOME: The court of appeals remanded the case for proceedings to determine whether there was general maritime and Jones Act jurisdiction.
