Don’t Gamble on Seaman Status
Caldwell v. St. Charles Gaming Co., No. 19-CC-01238, 2020 La. LEXIS222 (La. January 29, 2020).
By: Cameron Robichaux
Judge Boddie, sitting as Justice ad hoc for the Louisiana Supreme Court, delivered the opinion of the court, which held that the Grand Palais Casino is not a vessel. This decision overruled the Third Circuit of Louisiana sitting en banc. In this case, the Supreme Court rejected the Third Circuit’s broad reading of 1 U.S.C § 3 and set forth guidance for state courts to determine vessel status. The Third Circuit received the case on motions for summary judgment filed by both Plaintiff and Defendant to settle the vessel status for the purposes of a Jones Act claim.
The GrandPalais Casino was built as a riverboat casino in conformity with La. R.S.27:41-113. Although, in accordance with older law, the casino was designed withnavigation capabilities, a change in the law mandated that casino riverboats areno longer moved. When the law changed in2001, the Grand Palais became moored through use of nylon mooring lines andsteel wire cables and has sat to this day.
The Louisiana Supreme Court relied on acollection of authorities and did a thorough job of reviewing applicable law.The majority relied on a combined reading that limited the application of 1U.S.C. § 3, which the United States Supreme Court pronounced in Stewart v. Dutra and Lozman. Specifically, navigation isdefined as “[t]he act of transporting, carrying, or conveying from one place toanother,” and we must apply this definition in a “practical,” not a“theoretical,” way.[1] Consequently,a structure does not fall within the scope of this statutory phrase unless areasonable observer, looking to the home’s physical characteristics andactivities, would consider the structure designed to a practical degree forcarrying people or things over water.[2]
TheLouisiana Supreme Court rejected the Third Circuit’s reasoning that the“defendant works diligently to maintain the Grand Palais in a fully operationalcondition as required by law.”[3]Instead, the Court took a more pointed look at the practicality of moving theGrand Palais casino. The Court went on to hold “that although the Grand Palaiswas originally designed to transport people over water, and theoretically iscapable of navigation, as a result of the changes to its physicalcharacteristics, purpose, and function spanning nearly a decade and a half, itis no longer a vessel used in maritime transportation.”[4]
[1] Stewart v. Dutra Const. Co.,543 U.S. 481 (2005).
[2] Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 568 U.S. 115 (2013).
[3] Caldwell v. St. Charles Gaming Co., No. 19-CC-01238, 2020 La. LEXIS222, at *6 (La. January 29, 2020).
[4] Id., at *22.
