Admiralty Jurisdiction Denied Where Ship Located On A River Entirely Within A State And Bounded By Two Bridges With Lower Height Clearance Than The Height Of The Ship - Hence, The Ship Was Not Located In Navigable Waters.
ARNE G. SVENDSEN, Plaintiff, v. HOLLYWOOD CASINO - AURORA, INC. and the M/V CITY OF LIGHTS 1, in rem, Defendants.
No. 01 C 8408
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11907
June 27, 2002, Decided
July 1, 2002, Docketed
DISPOSITION: [*1] Motion to dismiss granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sued defendants, his employer, a casino, and in rem against the employer's ship where the casino was located. He claimed coverage under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 688, for personal injuries as a seaman due to the employer's negligence and the unseaworthiness of the ship. The employer filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331.
OVERVIEW: The district court noted that in order for the employee to have asserted federal admiralty jurisdiction, the key question was whether the specific area of the river where casino ship was located was navigable. The district court found that this area was clearly not navigable in fact. The casino ship was bounded by two bridges - one to the north and one to the south. Because the height of the casino ship exceeded the available clearance under both bridges, the ship was not able to pass beneath either of the bridges. Further, a lockless dam existed across the river that would have prohibited southern travel beyond this obstruction. Other obstructions prohibited northern travel. Finally, because the waterway was located entirely within the state of Illinois, interstate travel and commerce was not possible. The location test having failed, the court did not have admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331(1). Accordingly, because the ship was not located in navigable waters, the employee was not covered under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 688.
OUTCOME: The district court granted the motion to dismiss.
