Permanently Moored Casino Riverboat Not A Vessel In Navigation For Jones Act Purposes
JOHN HOWARD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SOUTHERNILLINOIS RIVERBOAT CASINO CRUISES, INC., doing business as PLAYERS ISLANDCASINO, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRIANGLE ENTERPRISES,INC., doing business as TRIANGLE INSULATION AND SHEET METAL COMPANY, Third-PartyDefendant-Appellant.
Nos. 02-3818 & 02-3819
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
364 F.3d 854; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6919
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant casino owner and third party defendant insulation company appealed an order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, which denied their motions for summary judgment on plaintiff workers' negligence action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. ยง 688 (a), and which certified for interlocutory review the question of whether the Act applied to workers on a permanently moored riverboat casino.
OVERVIEW: Workers on a permanently moored riverboat casino were exposed to chemicals in the course of their employment and sued the owner under the Act. The owner filed a third party claim against the company, and both defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which were denied. On interlocutory review, the court held although the riverboat was capable of cruising on the river, was licensed as a passenger vessel with the U.S. Coast Guard, and left its moorings once a year for Coast Guard mandated propulsion tests, the riverboat did not in fact transport passengers, was connected to land-based utilities, and maintained its status as vessel merely to comply with state gambling regulations. Therefore, using a pragmatic approach, the court held that the riverboat was not a vessel in navigation and, consequently, the workers were not seamen under the Act and could not bring claims under the Act.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the order and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendant and third party defendant.
