Jones Act Riverboat Casino Not Vessel in Navigation

Observing that since 2002, the riverboat where the employee worked had been moored and stationary — with the exception of rare tests conducted in compliance with federal regulations — that it was connected to the dock by eight mooring lines, two double-up lines, three fuel hoses, a sewage and water hose, and seven power cables, and that a majority of decisions on the issue had refused to grant vessel in navigation status to moored riverboats, an Indiana appellate court held that the riverboat casino was not a vessel in navigation, that while it was theoretically capable of being in navigation, the actual intention had been to remove the boat from navigation, except in emergency situations [RDI/Caesars Riverboat Casino, Inc. v. Conder, 896 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)].

 A dealer on a riverboat casino filed a Jones Act claim, contending that she sustained repeated flea bites while working on defendant's gambling casino riverboat, that she was required to take large doses of steroids for the flea bites, and that the steroids caused her to suffer a heart attack. At issue was whether the riverboat casino was a "vessel in navigation" for purposes of the Jones Act. ( (WCxKit) 

The dealer contended that the riverboat casino was, in fact, a vessel in navigation, pointing out that it was registered with and regularly inspected by the United States Coast Guard, and had its own engines and machinery, as well as navigation, lifesaving, and firefighting equipment. As noted, the court disagreed. See Larson’s Workers Compensation Law Ch. 146, § 146.02[2][b] n.16.  Visit the Workers Comp Law Community at LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/workerscompensationlaw/