EMPLOYER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON JONES ACT NEGLIGENCE DENIED WHERE SEAMAN...
EMPLOYER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON JONES ACT NEGLIGENCE DENIED WHERE SEAMAN / CROUPIER'S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY HER DEALING CARDS AND EMPLOYER REFUSED TO REASSIGN SEAMAN; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON UNSEAWORTHINESS GRANTED BECAUSE FAILURE TO REASSIGN SEAMAN / CROUPIER ON TWO OCCASIONS FELL SHORT OF A "CONTINUOUS COURSE OF CONDUCT"; EMPLOYER'S OBLIGATION TO PAY MAINTENANCE AND CURE IS NOT RELIEVED WHERE SEAMAN / CROUPIER REFUSED TO ACCEPT LIGHT DUTY POSITION.
ELIZABETH PUTNAM, Plaintiff, vs. EMPRESS CASINO JOLIET CORP.,Defendant.
No. 01 C 4245 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4486 March 12, 2002, Decided March 19, 2002, Docketed
DISPOSITION: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted as to Counts II and IV, granted in part and denied in part as to Count III and denied as to Count I.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sued defendant employer for personal injuries sustained during her employment on a casino river boat, and alleged negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688 et seq. (count one), unseaworthiness of the casino under general admiralty and maritime law (count two) and maintenance and cure under general admiralty and maritime law (count three) and the Jones Act (count four). The employer moved for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: The employer claimed summary judgment was appropriate as to the Jones Act negligence claim because she could not establish all the elements of her claim. The employee's supervisor knew she was experiencing pain in her arm from dealing and denied her requests for reassignment. Under these circumstances, a reasonable fact finder could have concluded the risk of injury was foreseeable to the employer. The employee advanced sufficient evidence to establish that the employer's failure to reassign her played some part in causing her injury. However, her supervisor's failure to reassign her on two occasions fell short of establishing a continuous course of conduct, thus her unseaworthiness claim failed. The employer's obligation to pay the employee maintenance until maximum cure was not affected by her refusal to accept the light duty position. The employee achieved maximum cure and the employer paid her medical expenses until that date, thus was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the cure claim. The employee did not allege any additional injuries resulting from the employer's failure to provide maintenance, thus her claim for maintenance and cure under the Jones Act failed.
OUTCOME: The employer's motion for summary judgment was granted as to counts two and four, granted in part and denied in part as to count three, and denied as to count one.
