Court Rules Tribal Sovereignty Includes Commercial Ventures - Immune From Lawsuits

Last Friday the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a motorcyclist hit and injured by a drunken employee of a Nevada Indian reservation couldn’t sue the tribe or its employees.

Christopher Cook, a California resident, was struck on his motorcycle by a car driven by Andrea Christensen, an employee of the Fort Mojave tribal casino.

Christensen was given free drinks at a birthday party at the casino, then bussed to her car and allowed to drive home. Her blood alcohol content the morning following the accident was at least 0.25. In Nevada, 0.08 is considered drunk.

Cook, who has more than $1 million in medical bills, filed suit against the tribal corporation that owns the casino; Ian Dodd, the manager who announced the drinks were free at a birthday party and Debra Purbaugh who served Christensen alcohol after she was already drunk.

Christensen pled guilty to aggravated assault and drunken driving and was sentenced to four years in an Arizona prison.

Judge Ronald Gould, who wrote the majority opinion, said, “Tribal sovereign immunity protects Indian tribes from suits absent express authorization by Congress or clear waiver by the tribe."

“This immunity applies to the tribe’s commercial as well as governmental activities,” wrote Gould.

Cook argued it was unfair to give tribes immunity from lawsuits where their commercial operations are concerned. Unfair because these tribal ventures operate in the same open marketplace as non-tribal corporations who are not immune from legal liabilities.

He said it was unnecessary to grant tribal corporations immunity to protect tribal autonomy and self-government.

The court was sympathetic to Cooks argument but said that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that only Congress can remove the shield of sovereign immunity.

The court also ruled that the protection from suit extends to the employees “when acting in their official capacity and within the scope of their authority.”

Gould said the decision produces “an unjust result.”

“This leaves Mr. Cook without a remedy against Avi Casino for his grave injuries under our law, even if his assertions of negligence by casino employees are correct,” wrote Gould in a concurring opinion in addition to the majority opinion.

He suggested either the U.S. Supreme Court or the Congress review the rule limiting tribal sovereign immunity involving Indian gaming casinos. Or he said the tribe itself could take responsibility for the actions of its employees and waive sovereign immunity.

Source:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/14/court-protects-indian-casino-lawsuit/