Blog Post


DEFINITION OF "SEAMAN" AGAIN DEBATED IN POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT CASE

Posted by: Joseph S. Stacey
June 19, 2007
Topic: Legal Cases and Concerns

In a previous post, I wrote about Isenhour v. Harvey's Casino, which found riverboat casino employees to be Jones Act seamen. The Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear another case involving casino boat workers and maritime law, and this case is slightly different.

In Isenhour v. Harvey's Casino, the casino employees worked as the riverboat was unmoored and traveling up and down the river. Therefore, since they were employed on a vessel and contributed to its function, they were seamen covered by the Jones Act. In the potential Supreme Court case, the casino boats were always moored when the gambling was in process, and the workers were never on board when the boat sailed its obligatory 200 hours on the Missouri river. The three workers who were injured aboard this boat expected to receive money from the Iowa worker's compensation fund, and were surprised when an appeals court ruled that, though they never sailed, they were considered seamen under the Jones Act.

Is a casino boat that never moved still considered a vessel under the Jones Act? Can women who never left shore, but who were technically employed on a boat, be considered seamen? Hopefully the Supreme Court will take this case and answer these questions.

If you work aboard a vessel and want to know if you are covered under the Jones Act, contact Beard Stacey Trueb & Jacobson, LLP to learn about your rights. Visit our website for more information.



Subscribe

  • RSS 2.0 Feed
  • My Yahoo!
  • Sub Bloglines
  • MyFeedster
  • newsgator
  • My MSN
What is RSS?