Utah Supreme Court

Can mine operators avoid liability by using independent contractors for dangerous work? Jones v. Cyprus Plateau Mining, Corp. Explained

1997 UT
No. 960238
August 12, 1997
Affirmed

Summary

Jones was injured when a rock face fell while he was drilling at Cyprus’s mine as an employee of independent contractor Redpath. Jones sued Cyprus for negligently breaching its nondelegable duty for mine safety, and the jury found Cyprus 75% at fault. Cyprus appealed challenging jury instructions and exclusion of evidence regarding MSHA’s failure to cite Cyprus.

Analysis

The Utah Supreme Court addressed whether mine operators can escape liability for workplace injuries when using independent contractors in Jones v. Cyprus Plateau Mining, Corp. The court’s analysis provides important guidance on nondelegable duties in hazardous industries and appellate preservation requirements.

Background and Facts

Thayde Jones was injured in 1990 when a large rock face fell while he operated drilling equipment at Cyprus’s Star Point No. 2 Mine. Jones worked for J.S. Redpath Company, an independent contractor hired by Cyprus to construct tunnels between coal seams. The area contained vertical ground displacement known as “graben,” making tunneling particularly hazardous. Jones sued Cyprus for negligently breaching its nondelegable duty to maintain mine safety and warn of dangerous conditions.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on Cyprus’s nondelegable duties under mining safety laws, and whether excluding evidence of MSHA’s failure to cite Cyprus constituted prejudicial error. Cyprus also challenged the court’s procedural handling of jury instruction objections.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment finding Cyprus 75% liable. Regarding jury instructions, the court held that Cyprus failed to adequately preserve its objection under Rule 51 by not stating specific grounds or requesting alternative language. The court emphasized that objections must be sufficiently precise to alert the trial court and permit corrections. On the evidentiary issue, the court applied abuse of discretion review and found Cyprus failed to demonstrate prejudicial error from excluding MSHA citation evidence.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that companies in hazardous industries cannot escape liability through independent contractor arrangements when nondelegable duties apply. For appellate practitioners, the case underscores the critical importance of making specific, detailed objections to jury instructions and ensuring all exceptions are taken before jury deliberation begins, as required by Rule 51.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Jones v. Cyprus Plateau Mining, Corp.

Citation

1997 UT

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 960238

Date Decided

August 12, 1997

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A mine operator’s nondelegable duty for mine safety makes it liable for independent contractor failures to undertake required safety precautions, and inadequately preserved jury instruction objections cannot support reversal.

Standard of Review

Abuse of discretion for denial of motion for new trial; abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings under Rule 403

Practice Tip

When objecting to jury instructions under Rule 51, state specific legal grounds and request alternative language rather than making general objections, as specificity is required to preserve issues for appeal.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Roberts

    January 11, 2018

    Trial courts may admit videotaped child victim interviews under Rule 15.5 when the court makes extensive findings supporting reliability despite imperfect interviewing techniques, and exclusion of expert testimony is not available under Utah Code section 77-17-13 absent deliberate violation of notice requirements.
    • Criminal Appeals
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Ansari

    September 23, 2004

    Utah’s Internet enticement statute is constitutional and does not contain fatally inconsistent terms, violate the Commerce Clause, or create impermissible vagueness.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Standing
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.