Conder v. RDI/Caesars Riverboat Casino

RDI/Caesars Riverboat Casino (Caesars) (defendant) operated a casino on the riverboat M/V Glory of Rome (the riverboat) (defendant). The riverboat was registered as a passenger vehicle with the United States Coast Guard and was equipped with engines, machinery, and equipment for navigation, lifesaving, and firefighting. However, beginning in August 2002, the riverboat was moored at a dock, and all gambling in the casino was conducted dockside. The casino remained nearly entirely stationary and no longer transported passengers, cargo, or equipment. Tina Conder (plaintiff) worked as a table-games dealer in the casino on the riverboat. Beginning in August 2003, Conder was repeatedly bitten by fleas while at work and suffered adverse reactions to the flea bites. Conder received steroid treatments for the bites, which allegedly caused her to have a heart attack. Conder sued Caesars and the riverboat to recover for her injuries. Conder brought her action under the federal Jones Act, which provided that seamen injured in the course of their employment could sue their employers to recover. In the alternative, Conder claimed that she was a Sieracki seaman—named for the United States Supreme Court case Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki—because she was a maritime employee suing for a dangerous defective condition aboard a vessel. The trial court found that Conder was a Jones Act seaman, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The appellate court explained that the Jones Act applies to employees of vessels in navigation, but the riverboat did not qualify as a vessel in navigation because it was permanently moored and served no transportation function or purpose. Following the appellate court’s decision, Caesars and the riverboat moved to dismiss Conder’s Jones Act and Sieracki-seaman claims. The trial court granted the motion, and Conder appealed. On appeal, the court stated that it would not revisit its prior decision regarding Conder’s eligibility for Jones Act seaman status and thus affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Conder’s Jones Act claim. The court then considered Conder’s Sieracki-seaman claim.