COURT REPORTER
www.lawcrossing.com
1. 800.973.1177
In Council Bluffs, the Bounding Main [By James Kilpatrick] Before it closes up shop for the summer, the Supreme Court probably will let us know if it will hear the appeal of Amanda, Helen and Beverly. Mr. Justice Kilpatrick, meaning me, votes to set the case for argument next fall. The young ladies’ plea involves a serious question of maritime law.
Remarkably, the case arises not on the high
heavy bags of coins in and out of the ship’s
What is a vessel? The Iowa court looked to a
seas but in Council Bluffs, Iowa. There, 10
vaults. In March of 2000, when the ship was
Supreme Court case just two years ago that
years ago this spring, Amanda Davis began
firmly moored to its Iowa dock, she seriously
involved a huge dredge in the Boston harbor.
working as a shipboard teller for gamblers
injured her neck. Two surgical operations
This clumsy but indispensable silt-remover
having fun on the riverboat Ameristar. While
were required, one of them a fusion.
had “certain characteristics” common to seagoing ships, e.g., a captain, a crew,
carrying a heavy bag of coins, she seriously The complaint of Beverly Isenhour is to the
navigational lights and a ship’s mess. On the
same effect. During the Christmas holidays
other hand, the SuperScoop could move only
Throughout the period of Davis’ employment
of 2000 as a change maker and “floor host”
short distances by manipulating anchors and
on the Ameristar, the vessel was more
in the slots department, she suffered severe
cables. For anything more than 30 to 50 feet,
or less permanently anchored in the
injuries to her back. She is still under a work
the dredge had to rely on a tugboat.
Missouri River. In order to meet Iowa’s
restriction against lifting more than 10 pounds.
injured her left wrist.
The question was whether Willard Stewart,
gambling laws, the owners of Ameristar were required to take their ship to sea, so
Manifestly, the several incidents were all
a marine engineer aboard the dredge, could
to speak, for 200 hours every year. Thus,
work-related. Understandably, the three
recover under the Jones Act for the serious
off and on for five months every summer,
plaintiffs sued for benefits under workmen’s
injuries he had suffered in an accident. The
the owners dutifully cruised for two hours
compensation. They won at first. The District
high court held, 8-0, that he could. The law
at dawn up toward Sioux City, down toward
Court of Pottawattamie County sensibly
does not require that a “vessel” be used
St. Joe. In these obligatory runs, Davis was
affirmed that (1) the women were not
primarily for “transportation” on water.
never at work or even on board.
seamen, and (2) the riverboat casinos were
Neither must a vessel be moving at a critical
not “vessels.” Sense and law are sometimes
juncture: The law is served by vessels that
Jacob J. Peters, counsel for the petitioners,
strangers: On appeal, Iowa’s Supreme Court
only stand and dredge.
says in his brief before the high court: “It
ruled that the plaintiffs are not employees
is important to note that from the time
covered by workmen’s comp. As a matter
Let me urge the court: Take the case from
Amanda started in March of 1997 until she
of law, they are seamen protected by the
Iowa! How could the women be sailors when
was injured in March of 1999, she was never
federal Jones Act of 1920. From that opinion,
they never left the shore?
on the boat when it sailed on the Missouri
the petitioners now appeal. (Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by
River. At all times she was working, the boat was moored. Also during that period
The original Jones Act never defined
of employment, she received no training or
“seaman,” but several Supreme Court
orientation in the boat, its operation, or any
opinions subsequently have put flesh on
of its safety equipment. She was not involved
the bones of the noun. A seaman “must
in any operations other than gambling.”
have an identifiable connection to a vessel
in navigation,” and the connection must be
A second co-plaintiff, Helen Falanga, is the
“substantial in terms of both its duration and
only one of the complainants still employed as
its nature.” Moreover, the subject employee
a member of a riverboat staff. When the case
must contribute to the “function of the vessel
began, she was a shipboard teller working
or to the accomplishment of its mission.”
out of a bank cage. Her job required her to lug
PAGE
e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.) COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.