The Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled that a permanently moored riverboat casino engaged in dockside gaming is not a “vessel,” under either the Jones Act or the General Maritime Law.
The case in point was Caldwell v. St. Charles Gaming. Caldwell was employed as a technician by the Grand Palais Casino in Lake Charles, Louisiana when he allegedly was injured when the gangway attached to the riverboat casino collapsed. The casino had been moored in the same location since 2001 and operated using shoreside utilities.
The lower court’s decision, which the Louisiana Supreme Court overturned, declared the casino was a vessel, raising the possibility that casino employees might qualify as seamen under the Jones Act, which would qualify them for “traditional remedies” granted to seamen, like maintenance and cure, the warranty of seaworthiness, and the right to sue their employer for negligence.
The lower court’s decision also conflicted with other Louisiana decisions stating permanently moored riverboat casinos are not vessels, and also with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, which recognized that “a water craft is not ‘capable of being used’ for maritime transport in any meaningful sense if it has been permanently moored.”
In Caldwell, the Louisiana Supreme Court focused on the Lozman decision and examined the primary purpose of the casino–gaming. The Court recognized the casino’s primary purpose was not maritime navigation or transporting people or things over water, even though the casino originally was designed for maritime transportation. The Court stated the casino had been “moored indefinitely to provide and maintain its primary purpose of gaming activities.”
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Caldwell presents a narrower definition of “vessel” with the result that federal maritime law would not apply to riverboat casino workers in Louisiana.
