## Facts

- Angela L. Booten (housekeeper) and Craig L. Willeford (slot attendant) worked aboard the M/V Alton Belle II, a self-propelled riverboat casino.
- The Alton Belle II operated under the Illinois Riverboat Gambling Act and conducted casino operations while moored at a dock.
- The boat complied with Coast Guard requirements and had working engines, navigational equipment, and a full crew.
- During casino operations, the vessel was connected to shore by mooring and utility cables, but could be readied to depart by detaching connections in about 15 minutes.
- The vessel left the dock several times per year for maintenance.
- Booten and Willeford were injured in separate incidents while performing their job duties aboard the boat.
- They sued Argosy Gaming Co. under the Jones Act, alleging negligence and asserting they were “seamen” injured on a “vessel in navigation.”
- The circuit court granted Argosy summary judgment on the ground that the Alton Belle II was not a “vessel in navigation,” and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the M/V Alton Belle II qualified as a “vessel in navigation” under the Jones Act despite being moored during casino operations but capable of navigation and periodically moved.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ Jones Act seaman claims where evidence supported vessel capability and intermittent navigation.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Argosy and remanded.
- The court held that the Alton Belle II was a “vessel in navigation” for Jones Act purposes.
- Because the vessel determination supported potential seaman status, plaintiffs’ Jones Act claims could proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Whether a craft is a “vessel” for Jones Act purposes is governed by federal maritime law.
- A craft may qualify as a “vessel in navigation” if it is practically capable of maritime transportation, even if it is commonly moored and primarily used for non-transportation activities.
- Structures that are permanently moored or altered such that they are practically incapable of movement are not “vessels in navigation.”
- State statutory labels or regulatory characterizations do not control the federal Jones Act “vessel” inquiry.
- Summary judgment on seaman or vessel status is disfavored when reasonable factfinders could differ based on the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court treated the Alton Belle II as a navigable Jones Act vessel because it retained self-propulsion, navigational features, operational crew, quick readiness for departure, and periodic voyages, making summary judgment against the injured onboard employees improper.


Booten v. Argosy Gaming Co., 848 N.E.2d 141 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 2006)