Summary Judgment granted against Seaman's claim for Jones Act Negligence and Unseaworthiness...
Summary Judgment granted against Seaman's claim for Jones Act Negligence and Unseaworthiness where Seaman failed to respond to employer's statement of uncontested facts which constituted an admission which negated the underlying alleged negligent and unseaworthy condition.
PETER AUKSTUOLIS, Plaintiff, v. HARRAH'S ILLINOIS CORP.,d/b/a HARRAH'S CASINO-JOLIET, Defendant.
Case Number: 99c3593
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16680
September 3, 2002, Decided
September 5, 2002, Docketed
DISPOSITION: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee filed suit under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. ยง 688, and general maritime and admiralty laws against defendant employer to recover for an injury he sustained during his employment on board the employer's gaming vessel. The employer moved for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: The crux of the employee's allegation was that the straight-line configuration of the slot machines on the employer's ship did not provide employees with adequate space to access the reserve compartment. However, by failing to respond to the employer's supplemental U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill., R. 56.1 statement of uncontested facts, the employee admitted that the straight-line configuration of the machines had always offered adequate space for employees to access and service the inner workings of the machines. Thus, the employee's willing or unwitting admission was equivalent to a withdrawal of his allegation that the employer was negligent. The employee's allegation of the employer's failure to maintain a seaworthy vessel was based on the same evidence used to support his allegation of the employer's negligence under the Jones Act. Therefore, given the employee's self-defeating admission, the court held that the evidence presented by the employee was insufficient to show that a reasonable jury could find that the employer's vessel was unseaworthy.
OUTCOME: The motion for summary judgment was granted.
