Francis v. State
321 P.3d 1089
Utah2013Background
- A black bear attacked campers at an unimproved dispersed campsite (the Campsite) in American Fork Canyon on June 17, 2007; DWR agents tracked the bear, classified it Level III, searched that day, then stopped their search around 5:00 p.m. and planned to return next morning.
- Before leaving, DWR agents swept the Campsite to ensure it was unoccupied and cleared of attractants, but they did not warn others, close the road, or post notices; as they drove away they passed the Mulveys (who later occupied the Campsite) and merely waved.
- That night the same bear returned, entered the Mulveys’ tent, and killed their child, Sam Ives. Plaintiffs (Sam’s parents) sued the State alleging DWR negligence in failing to warn and otherwise protect campers.
- On initial appeal (Francis I), the Utah Supreme Court rejected the State’s reliance on the permit exception but declined to consider two alternative defenses (no duty; natural condition immunity) because they had not been raised below; case remanded.
- On remand the State moved for summary judgment asserting (1) no special-duty existed and (2) immunity under the Immunity Act’s “natural condition” exception; the district court granted summary judgment for the State and plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law‑of‑the‑case barred State from raising duty and immunity on remand | Francis: prior opinion precluded new defenses | State: prior opinion declined to rule on them and remand allowed their presentation | Court: law‑of‑the‑case did not bar raising those defenses on remand |
| Whether DWR owed a duty (special relationship) to the Mulveys | Plaintiffs: DWR’s specific actions at the Campsite created a special relationship to subsequent occupants | State: no special relationship; public duty only | Court: DWR undertook specific actions directed at the Campsite and therefore owed a duty to the next occupants (Mulveys) |
| Whether indigenous wildlife (bear) is a "natural condition on publicly owned or controlled lands" under Utah Code § 63G‑7‑301(5)(k) | Plaintiffs: wildlife are not a “condition on the land” and thus exception does not apply | State: native bears are a natural condition and thus immunity applies | Court: the natural‑condition exception is limited to conditions closely tied to land/topography; a bear is not a "natural condition" under the statute, so immunity does not apply |
| Whether summary judgment for the State was proper | Plaintiffs: disputed legal questions preclude summary judgment on immunity and duty grounds | State: entitled to judgment as matter of law on both defenses | Court: reversed district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded (duty exists; natural‑condition immunity inapplicable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. State, 248 P.3d 44 (Utah 2010) (prior appellate decision in the same litigation refusing to reach State’s alternate defenses)
- Grappendorf v. Pleasant Grove City, 173 P.3d 166 (Utah 2007) (interpreting ‘‘natural condition on publicly owned or controlled lands’’ and excluding gusts of wind)
- Blackner v. Department of Transportation, 48 P.3d 949 (Utah 2002) (holding avalanches and underlying snowpack fall within natural condition exception)
- Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231 (Utah 1993) (special‑relationship analysis where danger to a reasonably identifiable group supported imposing duty)