## Facts

- St. Charles Gaming operated the Isle of Capri Casino in Lake Charles, Louisiana, using two floating casino structures moored beside a land-based hotel.
- The M/V CROWN CASINO was indefinitely moored to a dock and connected to shore-side utilities, including water, sewer, electricity, and telephone lines.
- The CROWN CASINO had not been used for navigation since March 28, 2001, and the operators did not intend to use it as a seagoing vessel.
- On August 21, 2003, David De La Rosa, a casino patron, tripped and fell on the CROWN CASINO near carpeting outside an elevator.
- De La Rosa alleged improper installation or maintenance of the carpet caused his fall.
- He sued for (1) unseaworthiness under general maritime law and (2) negligence under Louisiana’s slip-and-fall statute.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on both claims, holding (as relevant on appeal) that the CROWN CASINO was not a vessel, so admiralty jurisdiction was lacking.
- De La Rosa appealed only the vessel-status/admiralty-jurisdiction ruling affecting the unseaworthiness claim.

## Issues

1. Whether an indefinitely moored floating casino, integrated into shore-side infrastructure and not practically intended for maritime transportation, is a “vessel” for admiralty jurisdiction over a tort-based unseaworthiness claim.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held the CROWN CASINO was not a “vessel” for admiralty jurisdiction purposes.
- Because the structure was not a vessel, the location requirement for admiralty tort jurisdiction was not satisfied, and federal admiralty jurisdiction did not exist over the unseaworthiness claim.

## Legal Principles

- Admiralty tort jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) requires both a maritime location component and a connection to maritime activity; the location component generally requires injury on navigable waters involving a vessel.
- Under 1 U.S.C. § 3, vessel status turns on practical use as a means of transportation on water; theoretical floatation or towability alone is insufficient.
- A floating structure that is indefinitely moored, supplied by shore-side utilities, and functioning as part of a fixed land-based enterprise may be deemed withdrawn from navigation and treated as a non-vessel for admiralty jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the CROWN CASINO functioned as a stationary, shore-integrated casino rather than a water-transportation instrumentality, so it was not a vessel and could not support admiralty jurisdiction over De La Rosa’s unseaworthiness claim.


De La Rosa v. St. Charles Gaming Co., 474 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2006)