Casion boat owners may be liable under federal maritime law for onshore torts of intoxicated passengers

Law Reporter, Sep 1999

Casino boat owners may be liable under federal maritime law for onshore torts of intoxicated passengers. Young v. Players Lake Charles, L.L.C., 47 F. Supp. 2d 832 (SD. Tex. 1999). :

A U.S. district court ruled that owners of casino boats may be liable under federal maritime law for traffic deaths caused by intoxicated gamblers after they leave the ship.

Here, several people were killed or injured when their vehicle was struck by another vehicle. The driver of the second vehicle had allegedly been drinking for several hours aboard a riverboat casino in Louisiana.

The injured riders and estates and survivors of those killed sued the casino boat operator. Plaintiffs alleged defendant was negligent in serving alcohol to the intoxicated driver when it knew or should have known that he was intoxicated and posed a danger to others, including plaintiffs. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Louisiana law, providers of alcohol are not liable for the actions of those to whom they serve alcohol.

The court denied summary judgment, finding that general maritime law applied. The court then applied a twopronged test to determine whether it had jurisdiction over this maritime case under 28 U.S.C. 1sec.333. Under the first prong, a court must determine whether the tort occurred on navigable water or whether injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water. Here, the first prong was satisfied, the court said, because the alleged negligence was the serving of copious amounts of alcohol, which occurred on the casino boat.

Under the second prong, two issues must be considered: ( 1 ) whether the incident is potentially disruptive of maritime commerce and (2) whether the general character giving rise to the incident bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Citing case law, the court noted that a drunken passenger, by falling down a stairway or into the water, could easily lead to a disruption. With respect to the second issue, the court reasoned that the river boat casino was fully capable of and actually traveling on navigable waters. The court likened such boats to cruise or sightseeing vessels and noted that courts have consistently held that torts on such ships satisfy the traditional maritime activity requirement.

The court also rejected defendant's argument that no maritime rule exists concerning dram shop liability and that, therefore, it must apply state law. Citing case law, the court concluded that a defendant may be held liable under general maritime law for providing alcohol without adequate supervision.

Consequently, the court set a date for trial. Plaintiffs' Counsel:

*James Bruce McIver, Houston, Tex. Kenneth DeJean, Lafayette, La.