[¶ 1] Leonard (Lee) Watts brought a wrongful death suit after his wife, Tammy Sue Watts, who was a contract nurse at the Wyoming Honor Farm, was murdered by an inmate. The Wyoming Department of Corrections, Wyoming State Penitentiary and Wyoming Honor Farm (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the State”) moved for summary judgment, claiming they were immune from suit pursuant to the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). The district court denied their motion. In this combined appeal and writ of review, the State contests the district court’s ruling. We conclude that Mr. Watts’ claims are barred under the WGCA. Consequently, we reverse.
ISSUES
[¶ 2] The State phrases the issue as:
Do Appellee’s claims fall within the “operation or maintenance of any building” exception to governmental immunity under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-106 (LexisNexis 2003)?
Mr. Watts states the following appellate issues:
1. Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s Order Denying the State’s Motion for Summary Judgment?
2. Was the death of Tammy Watts a direct result of the manner in which the State of Wyoming operated the Honor Farm Administration Building thus permitting a claim to be made for wrongful death “caused by the negligence of public employees ... in the operation or maintenance of any building ...” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-106 (LexisNexis 2003)?
FACTS
[¶ 3] Ms. Watts was a contract nurse who worked at the Wyoming Honor Farm. She usually arrived for work around 6:00 a.m. each day. Ms. Watts was typically alone in the medical offices until the other nurse arrived between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m. The medical offices were located in the basement of the administration building, and inmates could access them from the east door without being observed. Sometime before 7:00 a.m. on April 16, 2004, Floyd Grady, an inmate at the Honor Farm, murdered Ms. Watts in the medical offices.
[¶ 4] As personal representative of Ms. Watts’ estate, Mr. Watts brought a wrongful death suit on behalf of her heirs. He claimed the State was negligent by:
• releasing Mr. Grady from the Wyoming State Penitentiary and transferring him to the Honor Farm;
• failing to provide for Ms. Watts’ safety and security;
• failing to “provide the security and reasonably safe conditions necessary to protect contract workers” from persons known to be extremely dangerous such as Mr. Grady;
• failing to “imprison and guard” Mr. Grady and other dangerous inmates in a reasonable mannеr;
• failing to operate the administration building in a safe and secure manner;
• providing an insufficient number of detention officers at the Honor Farm;
• improperly training, supervising and managing the detention officers at the Honor Farm;
*795 • failing to provide Ms. Watts with security from dangerous inmates;
• failing to prevent Mr. Grady from attacking and killing Ms. Watts.
[If 5] The State filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting it was immune from suit under the WGCA, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-39-101, et seq. (LexisNexis 2003). Mr. Watts argued that § 1-39-106, which waives immunity for “the negligence of public employees while acting within the scope of their duties in the operation or maintenance of any building,” applied to his claims. Mr. Watts argues that the “lack of sufficient guards, surveillance over the stairs and areа where Tammy Watts traveled to the medical offices and locating and operating the medical offices in the Administration Building in a fashion that permitted the inmates direct, unobserved access to the medical offices between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m. when Tammy Watts was there by herself’ fell within the waiver of immunity in § 1-39-106.
[¶ 6] The district court denied the State’s motion for a summary judgment, stating:
1. The State asserts no exception of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (Wyo. Stat. §§ 1-39-101 through 1-39-117) that permits the estate of Tammy Watts to bring this lawsuit.
[[Image here]]
3. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are liable pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 1 — 39—106[,] i.e. Tammy Watts’ death was caused by the negligence in Defendants’ operation or maintenance of the Wyoming Honor Farm.
4. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to the negligence, if any, of Defendants in the operation and maintenance of the Wyoming State Honor Farm, including but not limited to the number of security officers on duty the morning of Tammy Watt’s murder, the lack of security cameras in certain areas of the facility, Tammy Watts’ duties as a nurse at the Honor Farm, and inherent risks, if any, of such employment.
[¶ 7] The State filed a notice of appeal or, in the alternative, a petition for writ of review, seeking appellate review of the district court’s ruling on its claim it was immune from suit. We granted a writ of review.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
[¶ 8] Summary judgment motions are governed by W.R.C.P. 56(c):
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
We review a district court’s summary judgment rulings
de
novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court. The facts are reviewed from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record.
Cook v. Shoshone First Bank,
DISCUSSION
1. Jurisdiction
[¶ 9] Before we consider the merits, we will address whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal and the proper procedure for obtaining judicial review of a denial of а motion for summary judgment on the basis of immunity.
1
Generally, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an ap-pealable final order.
Gilstrap v. June Eisele Warren Trust,
The United States Supreme Court has held ... that a federal district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity was “an appealable ‘final decision’ * * * notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, *796472 U.S. 511 , 530,105 S.Ct. 2806 , 2817,86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). The Court reasoned that qualified immunity provides “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell,472 U.S. at 526 ,105 S.Ct. at 2815 (emphasis in original). In other words, unless the order denying dismissal can be reviewed before trial, it can never be effectively reviewed at all, because the defendant will have already suffered an irreparable loss to his immunity from suit.
[[Image here]]
State courts are divided on whether interlocutory appeal is available under these circumstances. We believe the state decisions which allow appeal, for the reasons detailed in Mitchell as cited above, are better reasoned; and we therefore hold that an order denying dismissal of a claim based on qualified immunity is an order appealable to this court. See Henke v. Superior Court,161 Ariz. 96 ,775 P.2d 1160 , 1162-64 (Ariz.[App.]1989).
Id.
[¶ 10] We have, in the past, granted a writ of review for the purposе of examining a denial of a governmental entity’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of immunity under the WGCA.
See, e.g., City of Cheyenne v. Huitt,
2. Section 1-39-106
[¶ 11] Section l-39-104(a) states:
(a) A governmental entity and its public employees while acting within the scope of duties are granted immunity from liability for any tort except as provided by W.S. 1-39-105 through 1-39-112 and limited by W.S. 1-39-121.
[¶ 12] Mr. Watts argued, and the district court apparently agreed, his claims fell within the waiver of immunity in § 1-39-106. Section 1-39-106 states:
A governmental entity is liable for damages resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage caused by the negligence of public employees while acting within the scope of their duties in the operation or maintenance of any building, recreation area or public park.
[¶ 13] In order to resolve this case, we must interpret the statutory language. “Questions of statutory intеrpretation are matters of law.”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue,
[¶ 14] Our case law includes specific principles that apply when interpreting the
*797
WGCA. The WGCA is considered a close-ended tort claims act, which means that a claim is barred by governmental immunity unless it falls within one of the statutory exceptions.
City of Torrington v. Cottier,
[¶ 15] One group of cases states that the WGCA should be interpreted liberally.
See, e.g., Hurst v. State,
The argument is made that the constitutional and statutory provisions before us should be construed liberally. There is no statutory provision for liberal construction. Section 8 — 1—103(a)(i), W.S.1977, provides the rule of construction for statutes unless “plainly contrary to the intent of the legislature: (i) Words and phrases shall be taken in their ordinary and usual sense * * * *.” By a liberal interpretation, it is only meant that words should not be forced out of their natural meaning and should receive a fair and reasonable construction so as to obtain the objects for which a statute is designed. Liberal construction does not require that words be forced out of their natural meaning. First National Bank & Trust Company of Wyoming v. Brimmer, Wyo.,504 P.2d 1367 (1973).
Thomson,
[¶ 16] Moreover, although we ruled that immunity was waived in
Stovall,
in
Hurst
and
Troyer
we concluded that the state was immune from suit because the claims made in those cases did not fall within a statutory exception. None of these cases relied in any significant way on the “liberal” interpretation principle. More importantly, even when announcing a rule of liberal construction, the cases emphasized that “a liberal construction does not require that words be accorded a forced, strained, or unnatural meaning, or warrant an extension of the statute to the suppression of supposed evils or the effectuation of conjectural objects and purposes not referred to, nor indicated in any of the terms used. Crawford,
Construction of Statutes
§ 238 at 451-452 (1940).”
Hurst,
[¶ 17] The liberal construction concept is also, arguably, supported by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-101 (LexisNexis 2007), which states:
The Code of Civil Procedure [this title] and all proceedings under it shall be liberally construed to promote its object and assist the parties in obtaining justice. The rule of common law that statutes in derogation thereof must be strictly construed has no application to the Code of Civil Procedure, but this shall not be so construed as to require a liberal сonstruction of provisions affecting personal liberty, relating to amercement or of a penal nature.
We discussed § 1-1-101 in the context of the WGCA in
Soles v. State,
*798 (a) The Wyoming legislature recognizes the inherently unfair and inequitable results which occur in the strict application of the doctrine of governmental immunity and is cognizant of the Wyoming Supreme Court decision of Oroz v. Board of County Commissioners,575 P.2d 1155 (1978). It is further recognized that the state and its political subdivisions as trustees of public revenues are constituted to serve the inhabitants of the state of Wyoming and furnish certain services not available through private parties and, in the case of thе state, state revenues may only be expended upon legislative appropriation. This act is adopted by the legislature to balance the respective equities between persons injured by governmental actions and the taxpayers of the state of Wyoming whose revenues are utilized by governmental entities on behalf of those taxpayers. This act is intended to retain any common law defenses which a defendant may have by virtue of decisions from this or other jurisdictions.
(b) In the case of the state, this act abolishes all judicially created categories such as “governmental” or “proprietary” functions and “discretionary” or “ministerial” acts рreviously used by the courts to determine immunity or liability. This act does not impose nor allow the imposition of strict liability for acts of governmental entities or public employees.
Id. at 774. Soles also reiterated that even when a statute is liberally interpreted, the court is still required to give the words used their plain meaning. Id.
[¶ 18] Another group
oí
cases advances a “strict construction” rule for the WGCA. In
Martinez v. City of Cheyenne,
It is generally held that statutes authorizing suit against the state are to be strictly construed, since they are in derogation of the state’s sovereignty 59 C.J. 303. And “the history оf sovereign immunity and the practical necessity of unfettered freedom for government from crippling interferences require a restriction of suability to the terms of the consent, as to persons, courts and procedure.” Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read,322 U.S. 47 ,64 S.Ct. 873 ,88 L.Ed. 1121 .
Id.
at 399. In
Harbel v. Wintermute,
[¶ 19] More recent cases have not spoken in terms of a strict or liberal construction of the WGCA. Instead, they simply state the principle that the WGCA is a close-ended act in which immunity is the rule and liability is the exception.
See, e.g., Sponsel v. Park County,
[¶ 20] Thus, we conclude the general rule in Wyoming is that the government is immune from liability, and, “[u]nless a claim falls within one of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity, it will be barred.”
Cottier,
¶ 7,
[¶21] The plain language of § 1-39-106 states that immunity is waived for negligence by a governmental entity’s employees in the “operation”
or
“maintenance” of “any building.” The parties take differing positions on whether Mr. Watts’ claims pertain to the “operation” of a building. The term “operation” is not defined in the statute; thus, we use the ordinary and obvious meaning of the term.
Cottier,
¶ 8,
The American Heritage College Dictiоnary 975 (4th ed.2004), defines “operation” as the “state of being operative or functional.” See also Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 827 (1991). Black’s Law Dictionary 1092 (6th ed.1990), defines “operation” as “the process of operating or mode of action.”
Id. Using these definitions, § 1-39-106 waives immunity for the State’s negligence in making the building functional.
[¶ 22] The parties disagree as to whether the statute waives immunity for operation of the physical building itself or the Honor Farm as an organization or entity. Mr. Watts argues that the statute should be read broadly because the administration building, where the murder took place, is part of the penal institution and the building’s operation must be viewed in light of its purpose. The Statе argues that the district court incorrectly interpreted the statutory waiver of immunity as applying to the operation of the Hon- or Farm as an institution rather than the operation of the building structure. In other words, it argues that the waiver of immunity is limited to matters pertaining to the building structure itself rather than the Honor Farm as a penal institution.
[¶ 23] We construe a statutory provision to harmonize it with other provisions relating to the same subject matter. Some of the other statutes waiving governmental immunity pertain to the operation of specific types of institutions. For example, § 1-39-109 waives immunity for the “negligence of public employees while acting within the scope of their duties in the operation of any public hospital[.]” If we were to accept Mr. Watts’ broad interpretation of the waiver of immunity for operation of public buildings, there would be no need to specifically waive immunity for the operation of hospitals because such negligence would already be subsumed in the statute waiving immunity for operation of hospital buildings. Thus, the context of § 1-39-106 within the WGCA indicates that the legislature intended the waiver to extend only to the function of the building itself rather than the entity operated within the building. If the legislature had meant to waive immunity for operation of a penal institution, it could have done so expressly. See, e.g., Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 24-10-106(b) (LexisNexis 2007) (specifying governmentаl liability for negligence in operation of correctional facilities and jails). In accordance with our rules of statutory interpretation, we will not expand the waiver of immunity to include matters not expressly stated by the legislature.
[¶ 24] Mr. Watts argues that
Cottier
supports his argument that § 1-39-106 should be read to include operation of the Honor Farm as an entity. In that case, we were dealing with the waiver of immunity for operation of a public utility in § 1-39-108.
Cottier,
¶ 12,
[¶ 25] Moreover, we have, in prior cases, limited the reach of § 1-39-106 in accor
*800
dance with its plain language. In
Huitt,
[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the words “operation or maintenance of аny building” does not encompass the deliberate destruction of it. In the context of the Act, the operation of a building is not the same as an operation on a building, and while the maintenance of a building is that done on or to a building, that done under maintenance is just the opposite of the destruction of it.
In
Soles,
[¶ 26] Both parties direct us to cases from New Mexico to support their respective positions. New Mexico’s governmental claims act is similar to Wyoming’s. The analogous New Mexico statute states that governmental immunity is waived for “liability for damages ... caused by the negligence of public employees while acting within the scope of their duties in the operation or maintenance of any building, public park, machinery, equipment or furnishings.” N.M. Stat. § 41 — 4-6(A) (LexisNexis 2007). Because of these similarities, one commentator has stated that New Mexico decisions “should be consulted to interpret like provisions” of the Wyoming act. L. Wolfe,
Comment, Wyoming’s Governmental Claims Act: Sovereign Immunity with Exceptions
—A
Statutory Analysis,
15 Land & Water L.Rev. 619, 623 (1980).
See also, Cottier,
¶ 12 n. 5,
[¶ 27] Unfortunately, the New Mexico decisions interpreting its public building statute do not give us clear guidance. In fact, it is not unfair to say the New Mexico courts have followed a winding and tortured path in interpreting their statute. One line of cases specifically holds that the public building exception does not waive immunity for negligence in the security, custody and classification of inmates.
Wittkowski v. State,
[¶ 28] In
Wittkowski,
two violent and psychotic inmates escaped from a New Mexico minimum security facility and crossed the border into Colorado where they killed the plaintiffs decedent during a liquor store robbery.
Wittkowski,
[¶ 29] The New Mexico Supreme Court confirmed the
Wittkowski
and
Gallegos
decisions in
Archibeque,
[¶30] Other cases, including those referred to in
Archibeque,
read the “public building” exception more broadly.
See, e.g., Bober,
[¶ 31] In
Rivera v. King,
[¶ 32] In
Callaway v. New Mexico Dep’t of Corrections,
[W]e hold that Plaintiff has stated a claim sufficient to waive immunity under Section 41-4-6 because Defendants knew or should have known that roaming gang members with a known propensity for violence had access to potential weapons in the recreation area, that such gang members created a dangerous condition on the premises of the penitentiаry, and that the danger to other inmates was foreseeable.
Id. at 399. The court of appeals remarked that, unlike in Archibeque where only the individual victim was endangered by the state’s actions, the alleged condition in Calla-way exposed the general prison population to danger. The New Mexico Supreme Court refused to hear the Callaway case on appeal. Id. at 393, cert. denied, May 17, 1994.
[¶ 33] In
Espinoza v. Town of Taos,
[¶34] In a case outside of the prison context, the New Mexico court of appeals ruled that a student who was injured when he fell into a window that contained regular glass instead of safety glass and was not fitted with any safety guards to prevent someone from falling through the window stated a claim under the public buildings exception. Williams
v. Central Consol. School Dist.,
[¶ 35] In a more recent decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court broadly read the statute and allowed a claim brought by the parents of a student who died of an asthma attack at school to proceed.
Upton v. Clovis Municipal School Dist.,
[¶36] We find no clear rationale in the New Mexico cases for interpreting “operation of a building” to include activities unrelated to the physical building. However, the New Mexico cases have clearly held, and we have no difficulty agreeing, that matters pertaining to the security, custody and classification of inmates are not cognizable under the public buildings exception, provided those matters do not concern the physical structure of the building. We are not, however, inclined to agree that any “unsafe condition,” beyond those involving the building itself, should come within the statute, especially when interpreted as broadly as the New Mexico Supreme Court did in Upton. Instead, we believe the waiver of immunity in Wyoming was intended to apply only if the unsafe condition is due to a physical defect in the building. The concept of physical defect would include аny safety features mandated by applicable law, as recognized by the New Mexico court of appeals in Williams.
[¶ 37] This Court is more inclined to agree with Maine’s interpretation of its public buildings exception, also similar to § 1-39-106. Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. 14 § 8104-A(2) (2007) states in pertinent part:
PUBLIC BUILDINGS. A governmental entity is liable for its negligent acts or omissions in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances to any public building.
Interpreting this provision, the Maine Supreme Court has ruled that the “operation of a public building exception to immunity ... must implicate the physical structure of the public building.”
Lightfoot v. School Admin. Dist. No. 35,
[¶ 38] We, therefore, conclude the clear and unambiguous language of § 1-39-106, within the context of the rest of the WGCA, indicates that the legislature intended to limit the waiver of immunity to negligence associated with the function of the building structure and did not intend to extend the waiver to negligence associated with operation of the penal institution within the building. The operation and maintenance responsibility includes fixtures attached to the building. Moreover, like the New Mexico court of appeals recognized in Williams, if applicable building codes, statutes or ordinances mandate that certain safety features be installed or in use in the building, then liability would extend to injuries arising from the failure of the governmental entity to install or maintain those devices. We have no difficulty stating that such matters fall within the definition of operation of public buildings because they are necessary to make the building legally functional. We do, as always, take this opportunity to invite the legislature to revise *803 the statute if we have not interpreted it in accordance with its intent.
[¶39] We turn now to the substance of Mr. Watts’ claims. The allegations that the State improperly moved Mr. Grady to the Honor Farm, had insufficient or improperly trained or supervised guards at the Honor Farm, and failed to imprison and guard Mr. Grady properly do not pertain to the physical structure of the building and, consequently, do not fall within the exception.
[¶ 40] With regard to his lack of surveillance claim, Mr. Watts argues that security cameras should have been installed so that the guards could monitor the east entrance. The Honor Farm warden testified that security cameras had been ordered for the medical office area, but they apparently had not been installed at the time of Ms. Watts’ death. Mr. Watts submitted an affidavit from a former correctional officer at the Honor Farm. He stated that, in his opinion, “if there had been security cameras to monitor the entrance to the medical offices, it is unlikely Floyd Grady could have prevented detection of his presence and Tammy Watts would not have been killed.” Mr. Watts does not, however, direct us to any building code or other law that mandated installation of security cameras in the medical offices. Thus, Mr. Watts’ claims of insufficient surveillance or the lack of security cameras do not fall within the waiver.
[¶ 41] Mr. Watts claims the State was negligent by placing the medical offices in the basement and that action falls within the statutory waiver of immunity for public buildings. We cannot agree. The record indicates that the medical offices had previously been located on the ground floor of the administration building, but, because more room was needed, they had been moved to the basement at least a year before the homicide occurred. The decision to place the medical offices in the basement was administrative and did not pertain to the physical structure of the building. Instead, it was a decision concerning how the Honor Farm would be operated as an entity. Mr. Watts’ claim in that regard is not, thereforе, cognizable under § 1-39-106.
[¶ 42] Finally, Mr. Watts also asserts the State was negligent in providing for Ms. Watts’ security and safety. As we stated earlier, matters pertaining to the security, custody and classification of inmates are not cognizable under the public building exception to the WGCA. Because Mr. Watts does not argue that any particular physical defect in the building resulted in Ms. Watts’ death, his claim does not fall within the parameters of § 1-39-106.
CONCLUSION
[¶ 43] Section 1-39-106 does not waive the State’s immunity for negligence in the operation of the corrections system. Instead, it specifically limits the exception to matters associated with the physical building itself. Because Mr. Watts’ claims do not pertain to the physical condition of a building at the Wyoming Honor Farm, the State is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
[¶ 44] Case No. S-07-0050, writ of review, is dismissed. Case No. S-07-0095, appeal, is reversed and remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. We issued an order requiring the parties to brief the jurisdiction issue.
.
State v. Stovall,