Injury On A Permanently Moored Riverboat Casino Not In Admiralty
GWEN WARD VERSUS BOYD GAMING CORPORATION IN PERSONAM and TheM/V TREASURE CHEST, her engine, Tackle, etc. IN REM
CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0060 SECTION "K" (2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3509
March 4, 2004, Decided
March 4, 2004, Filed; March 5, 2004, Entered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) plaintiff's personal injury action in which plaintiff asserted that she seriously injured her right leg on the job, attributing defendant's negligence and the vessel's unseaworthiness as the cause of the accident. Plaintiff brought her action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. ยง 688, and General Maritime Law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h).
OVERVIEW: The boat upon which plaintiff worked was a paddlewheel-driven riverboat casino. The court noted that the Jones Act provided that "any seaman " who sustained personal injury in the course of his employment could maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury. Plaintiff alleged that at the time of her injury, the boat was a vessel in navigation and as such, she was a member of the crew, entitling her to seaman status under the Jones Act, and general maritime law. The court disagreed. It held that the federal courts had consistently held that indefinitely or permanently moored riverboat casinos were not Jones Act vessels. Therefore, Jones Act seaman status did not apply to plaintiff. Plaintiff next asserted that if she was not a seaman, then she still had a general maritime law cause of action because the casino was floating in navigable waters at the time of her injury and thus was within the admiralty jurisdiction. The court found that plaintiff had failed to establish a sufficient maritime nexus due to a lack of potential impact on maritime commerce. Her claims were not within the court's admiralty jurisdiction and, therefore, had to be dismissed.
OUTCOME: The court granted defendant's motion and dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
