Francis v. State, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 321 P.3d 1089

Parents of Sam Ives sued the State for negligence after Sam was killed by a bear at an unimproved campsite in American Fork Canyon; the State allegedly failed to warn campers of the bear risk.
District court initially dismissed under the permit exception to Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act and the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding the permit exception did not apply.
On remand, the State asserted two alternative theories (duty of care and natural condition immunity) which the district court later granted summary judgment on, prompting the plaintiffs’ appeal.
The Bear Policy guided the Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) actions; after the bear attacked, DWR classified it as Level III and pursued it with dogs, then swept the Campsite to make it unoccupied and free of attractants before leaving.
DWR did not warn the Campsite or nearby campground after 5:00 p.m., and the Mulveys were passing by when DWR waved but did not deter or warn them about the earlier attack.
The court ultimately held that the State owed a duty to the Mulveys as the next occupants of the Campsite due to its protective actions, and that the bear was not a natural condition on public lands, so immunity did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State owe a duty to the Mulveys as the next occupants of the Campsite?	State undertook protective actions directed at the Campsite, creating a special relationship.	No special relationship; no duty to individuals outside general public.	Yes, the State owed a duty to the Mulveys as the next occupants.
Does the natural condition exception immunize the State from liability for wildlife?	Wildlife is not a natural condition; bears are not immune.	Wildlife can be a natural condition on land under the statute.	No; wildlife like the bear is not a natural condition on the land, so immunity does not apply.
Was the State precluded by the law of the case from raising these theories on remand?	Law of the case barred reconsideration of these theories.	Law of the case did not bar arguments raised on remand.	No; the State could raise its arguments on remand.

Higgins v. Salt Lake Cnty., 855 P.2d 231 (Utah 1993) (special relationship when custodian knows a likely danger to identifiable individuals or groups)
Grappendorf v. Pleasant Grove City, 173 P.3d 166 (Utah 2007) (natural condition exception limited to topographical features; wind not natural condition)
Blackner v. Dep't of Transportation, 48 P.3d 949 (Utah 2002) (avalanches fall within natural condition exception)
Francis v. State (Francis I), 248 P.3d 44 (Utah 2010) (law of the case issue; permit and duty arguments discussed)