AMENDED OPINION®
DURRANT, Chief Justice:
INTRODUCTION
1 This case is making its second appearance before this court. Plaintiffs are the parents of a young boy, Sam Ives,1 who was killed by a bear while camping with his family, the Mulveys,2 in American Fork Canyon. [1092]*1092They sued the State of Utah, alleging that the State negligently failed to warn the Mul-veys of the dangerous condition ereated by the bear. The district court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the permit exception to the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (Immunity Act) and the plaintiffs appealed.3 We reversed and held that the permit exception was inapplicable to the facts of this case.
2 On remand, the State raised two alternative arguments. First, the State argued that it owed no duty to the Mulveys. See-ond, the State argued that even if it did owe a duty, the natural condition exception to the Immunity Act precluded liability. After the district court dismissed the case a second time, the plaintiffs appealed and now raise three arguments. First, they assert that, under the law of the case doctrine, our refusal to entertain the State's alternative arguments in Francis I prevented the State from arguing those theories on remand. Second, they argue that the State did owe the Mul-veys a duty of care. Finally, they contend that the natural condition exception to the Immunity Act does not apply.
T8 The State counters that it was not barred from presenting its alternative arguments on remand. It reasons that we refused to consider those arguments in Francis I only because they had not been raised below and that our opinion actually contemplated that the State would be able to present its alternative arguments to the district court on remand. Second, the State argues that it owed no duty to the Mulveys because no special relationship existed. Finally, the State argues that because a bear is a natural condition, the State is immunized from lability under the natural condition exception to the Immunity Act.
1 4 We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State. First, we hold that the State was entitled to present its alternative arguments on remand. Therefore, the issues of whether the State owed the Mulveys a duty and whether the natural condition exception applies are properly before this court. We further hold that (1) the State owed the Mulveys a duty because it undertook specific action to protect them as the next group to use the campsite, and (2) the natural condition exception does not immunize the State from liability because a bear is not a "natural condition on publicly owned or controlled lands." 4
BACKGROUND
15 For purposes of the State's motion for summary judgment and this appeal, "the parties d[o] not dispute the relevant facts, most of which [alre taken from the related trial against the Federal government." 5
T6 On June 16, 2007, Jake Francom camped with his friends at an unimproved, dispersed campsite in the Uintah National Forest (Campsite) Unlike the improved Timpooneke Campground 1.2 miles away, the Campsite did not have water, a bathroom, or any other maintained facilities. It consisted of a ring of rocks for a fire, a flat area for tents, and room for a car to pull off the road. Despite the lack of improvements, it was a frequently used campsite, one of only a few on the dead-end Timpooneke Road. The only public access to the Campsite was through the Timpooneke Campground.
T7 The U.S. Forest Service (NFS) was responsible for managing Timpooneke Campground, the Campsite, and Timpooneke Road. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between NFS and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR), NFS "[rJecognize[d DWR] as the agency with the authority, jurisdiction, and responsibility to manage, control, and regulate ... wildlife populations on NFS lands."
T8 At approximately 5:80 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 2007, while Mr. Francom and his friends slept in their tents, a black bear raided their coolers. The bear then struck Mr. Francom's head with its paw, and when Mr. Francom attempted to sit up, the bear pushed him back down. When Mr. [1093]*1093Francom yelled to his friends, the group exited their tents and seared the bear away with pistol shots. Mr. Francom described the bear as a large, cinnamon-colored black bear. Such black bears are native to Utah.
T9 Mr. Francom reported the bear attack to Utah County Dispatch at 9:25 a.m. that morning. The dispatcher told Mr. Francom that she would notify NFS but that Mr. Francom needed to call the Utah Highway Patrol, who would in turn notify DWR. Mr. Francom did so, and DWR was notified.
T 10 DWR's decision to track and destroy . the bear was based on its internal policy entitled "Handling Black Bear Incidents" (Bear Policy). The Bear Policy is based on the premise that "[bllack bear management in Utah attempts to balance the interest of wildlife, pubic use and public safety." DWR has a three-level classification system for nuisance bears. The highest classification, Level III, is for bears that have shown no fear of humans, have displayed aggressive behavior toward humans, and are deemed a threat to public safety. "Corrective action in these situations requires that the offending bear be destroyed." At approximately 10:00 a.m. on June 17, 2007, DWR classified the bear that attacked Mr. Francom as a Level III bear.
{11 On the afternoon of the attack, two DWR agents, Dennis Southerland and Luke Osborn, responded to the incident and pursued the bear with dogs. They initiated the search at the Campsite and tracked the bear for approximately four to five hours, with no success. They ended the search at approximately 5:00 pm. on June 17, 2007, but planned to return to the Campsite and set a trap the next morning. The DWR agents focused on the Campsite because the bear had found food there and would likely return if attracted. And they knew humans or food could act as an attractant for the bear. Therefore, just before leaving the area at approximately 5:00 p.m., they checked the Campsite to make sure it was unoccupied and clean of any attractants.
12 It is undisputed that DWR made no effort to warn anyone who might arrive at the Campsite after 5:00 p.m., nor did DWR warn the camp host at the nearby Timpoo-neke Campground. The NFS District Ranger for the area testified that a warning about the dangerous bear could have been placed on the gate at the head of Timpooneke Road, the gate could have been closed, or the Campsite could have been closed. But the DWR agents explained that no such precautions were taken because it was already 5:00 p.m. on a Sunday, and they did not expect anyone to use the Campsite that evening.
' 13 As the DWR agents left the Campsite and traveled down the canyon on Timpoo-neke Road, they passed the Mulveys, who were traveling in the opposite direction. The DWR agents did not stop the Mulveys or warn them of the earlier attack but merely waved as they passed. The Mulveys "would not have camped in or anywhere near the area" and would have returned home had they known of the earlier attack.
T 14 After passing the DWR agents, the Mulveys proceeded down Timpooneke Road, set up at the Campsite, and cooked dinner. After dinner, they cleaned up the Campsite, put their coolers and garbage in their car, and went to bed in a single tent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AMENDED OPINION®
DURRANT, Chief Justice:
INTRODUCTION
1 This case is making its second appearance before this court. Plaintiffs are the parents of a young boy, Sam Ives,1 who was killed by a bear while camping with his family, the Mulveys,2 in American Fork Canyon. [1092]*1092They sued the State of Utah, alleging that the State negligently failed to warn the Mul-veys of the dangerous condition ereated by the bear. The district court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the permit exception to the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (Immunity Act) and the plaintiffs appealed.3 We reversed and held that the permit exception was inapplicable to the facts of this case.
2 On remand, the State raised two alternative arguments. First, the State argued that it owed no duty to the Mulveys. See-ond, the State argued that even if it did owe a duty, the natural condition exception to the Immunity Act precluded liability. After the district court dismissed the case a second time, the plaintiffs appealed and now raise three arguments. First, they assert that, under the law of the case doctrine, our refusal to entertain the State's alternative arguments in Francis I prevented the State from arguing those theories on remand. Second, they argue that the State did owe the Mul-veys a duty of care. Finally, they contend that the natural condition exception to the Immunity Act does not apply.
T8 The State counters that it was not barred from presenting its alternative arguments on remand. It reasons that we refused to consider those arguments in Francis I only because they had not been raised below and that our opinion actually contemplated that the State would be able to present its alternative arguments to the district court on remand. Second, the State argues that it owed no duty to the Mulveys because no special relationship existed. Finally, the State argues that because a bear is a natural condition, the State is immunized from lability under the natural condition exception to the Immunity Act.
1 4 We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State. First, we hold that the State was entitled to present its alternative arguments on remand. Therefore, the issues of whether the State owed the Mulveys a duty and whether the natural condition exception applies are properly before this court. We further hold that (1) the State owed the Mulveys a duty because it undertook specific action to protect them as the next group to use the campsite, and (2) the natural condition exception does not immunize the State from liability because a bear is not a "natural condition on publicly owned or controlled lands." 4
BACKGROUND
15 For purposes of the State's motion for summary judgment and this appeal, "the parties d[o] not dispute the relevant facts, most of which [alre taken from the related trial against the Federal government." 5
T6 On June 16, 2007, Jake Francom camped with his friends at an unimproved, dispersed campsite in the Uintah National Forest (Campsite) Unlike the improved Timpooneke Campground 1.2 miles away, the Campsite did not have water, a bathroom, or any other maintained facilities. It consisted of a ring of rocks for a fire, a flat area for tents, and room for a car to pull off the road. Despite the lack of improvements, it was a frequently used campsite, one of only a few on the dead-end Timpooneke Road. The only public access to the Campsite was through the Timpooneke Campground.
T7 The U.S. Forest Service (NFS) was responsible for managing Timpooneke Campground, the Campsite, and Timpooneke Road. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between NFS and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR), NFS "[rJecognize[d DWR] as the agency with the authority, jurisdiction, and responsibility to manage, control, and regulate ... wildlife populations on NFS lands."
T8 At approximately 5:80 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 2007, while Mr. Francom and his friends slept in their tents, a black bear raided their coolers. The bear then struck Mr. Francom's head with its paw, and when Mr. Francom attempted to sit up, the bear pushed him back down. When Mr. [1093]*1093Francom yelled to his friends, the group exited their tents and seared the bear away with pistol shots. Mr. Francom described the bear as a large, cinnamon-colored black bear. Such black bears are native to Utah.
T9 Mr. Francom reported the bear attack to Utah County Dispatch at 9:25 a.m. that morning. The dispatcher told Mr. Francom that she would notify NFS but that Mr. Francom needed to call the Utah Highway Patrol, who would in turn notify DWR. Mr. Francom did so, and DWR was notified.
T 10 DWR's decision to track and destroy . the bear was based on its internal policy entitled "Handling Black Bear Incidents" (Bear Policy). The Bear Policy is based on the premise that "[bllack bear management in Utah attempts to balance the interest of wildlife, pubic use and public safety." DWR has a three-level classification system for nuisance bears. The highest classification, Level III, is for bears that have shown no fear of humans, have displayed aggressive behavior toward humans, and are deemed a threat to public safety. "Corrective action in these situations requires that the offending bear be destroyed." At approximately 10:00 a.m. on June 17, 2007, DWR classified the bear that attacked Mr. Francom as a Level III bear.
{11 On the afternoon of the attack, two DWR agents, Dennis Southerland and Luke Osborn, responded to the incident and pursued the bear with dogs. They initiated the search at the Campsite and tracked the bear for approximately four to five hours, with no success. They ended the search at approximately 5:00 pm. on June 17, 2007, but planned to return to the Campsite and set a trap the next morning. The DWR agents focused on the Campsite because the bear had found food there and would likely return if attracted. And they knew humans or food could act as an attractant for the bear. Therefore, just before leaving the area at approximately 5:00 p.m., they checked the Campsite to make sure it was unoccupied and clean of any attractants.
12 It is undisputed that DWR made no effort to warn anyone who might arrive at the Campsite after 5:00 p.m., nor did DWR warn the camp host at the nearby Timpoo-neke Campground. The NFS District Ranger for the area testified that a warning about the dangerous bear could have been placed on the gate at the head of Timpooneke Road, the gate could have been closed, or the Campsite could have been closed. But the DWR agents explained that no such precautions were taken because it was already 5:00 p.m. on a Sunday, and they did not expect anyone to use the Campsite that evening.
' 13 As the DWR agents left the Campsite and traveled down the canyon on Timpoo-neke Road, they passed the Mulveys, who were traveling in the opposite direction. The DWR agents did not stop the Mulveys or warn them of the earlier attack but merely waved as they passed. The Mulveys "would not have camped in or anywhere near the area" and would have returned home had they known of the earlier attack.
T 14 After passing the DWR agents, the Mulveys proceeded down Timpooneke Road, set up at the Campsite, and cooked dinner. After dinner, they cleaned up the Campsite, put their coolers and garbage in their car, and went to bed in a single tent. Not all of the food made it into the car, however, and Sam brought a granola bar and a can of soda into the tent that evening. After the family had gone to sleep, a bear entered the Campsite, pulled Sam from the tent, and killed him. The bear was the same bear that had attacked Mr. Francom earlier that day.
1] 15 Plaintiffs filed suit against the State, alleging that DWR's negligence led to the bear attack that caused Sam's death. After filing an answer and amended answer,. the State filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.6 In its motion, as in its answer and amended answer, the State argued, among other things, that the permit exception to the Immunity Act, Utah Code section 63G-7-3801(5)(c),7 barred the plaintiffs' claims. On appeal, we reversed, holding that [1094]*1094the Immunity Act's permit exception had "no bearing" on the plaintiffs' claims.8
€16 We declined to address two alternative arguments presented by the State in Francis I: (1) that the State owed no duty of care to the Mulveys and (2) that the natural condition exception, section 68G-7-801(5)(k) of the Utah Code, immunized the State from liability.9 We "reject[ed] the State's two alternate arguments because they were not argued below and [were] not apparent on the record."10
{17 On remand in the district court, the State filed a motion for summary judgment, raising the two alternative arguments that we declined to address in Francis I. The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike, arguing that these two legal theories were barred by the law of the case doctrine. The district court denied the plaintiffs motion and allowed them to respond to the State's motion for summary judgment. Following oral argument, the district court granted the State's motion for summary judgment on both duty and immunity grounds and dismissed the plaintiffs' case. Plaintiffs timely appealed.
18 We have jurisdiction pursuant to seetion 78A-3-102(8)(j) of the Utah Code. We affirm the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to strike but reverse its grant of summary judgment for the State.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
119 "Motions to strike pleadings or parts thereof are addressed to the judgment and discretion of the trial court. A ruling thereon, except under circumstances which amount to a clear abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal." 11 In contrast, we review a district court's grant of summary judgment for correctness, "considering only whether the trial court correctly applied the law and correctly concluded that no disputed issues of material fact existed."12 Summary judgment is proper only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."13 Similarly, whether the district court accurately interpreted the Immunity Act is a legal question that we review for correctness.14
ANALYSIS
I. OUR REFUSAL TO REACH THE STATE'S TWO ALTERNATIVE THEORIES FOR DISMISSAL IN FRANCIS I DID NOT PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM RAISING THEM ON REMAND
120 In its briefs to us in Francis I, the State presented two alternative theories to support the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. We declined to entertain those theories because the State had not argued either of them below and the district court had not been given an opportunity to rule on them. Our ruling did not, however, preclude the State from raising those arguments in the district court on remand.
121 "[A] decision of an appellate court constitutes the law of the case only as to such questions of law as were involved in the judgment, and as were presented to the court and expressly or impliedly decided."15 In Francis I, we did not expressly or impliedly decide the merits of the State's duty or natural condition exception defenses. Rather, we ruled only that we would not consider those arguments because the State had not presented the defenses below and the district [1095]*1095court had not yet ruled on their merits. But our ruling in no way prevented the State from raising those defenses on remand.
1 22 That is exactly what the State elected to do. On remand, the State raised its duty and natural condition exception defenses as part of a motion for summary judgment. The district court found the defenses meritorious and granted the State's motion. Because our ruling in Francis I in no way foreclosed the State's ability to argue duty or the natural condition exception before the district court, the district court did not err in ruling on the merits of those arguments.
IIL THE STATES PROTECTIVE ACTIONS, DIRECTED AT THE CAMPSITE, GAVE RISE TO A DUTY OF CARE TO THE MULVEYS AS THE NEXT OCCUPANTS OF THE CAMPSITE
123 We next turn to the merits of the State's alternative defenses. We "consider whether there is a legal theory upon which suit can be brought ... before considering the separate and independent questions of whether the [government] is immune.16 Therefore, before considering whether the natural condition exception applies, we consider whether the State owed the Mulveys a duty of care.
24 Plaintiffs assert that the State owed them a duty because (1) it took specific action to protect the Mulveys as potential users of the Campsite; (2) it failed to follow its internal Bear Policy; or (8) it had assumed the obligations of a landowner. We agree with the Plaintiffs first argument and conclude that the State's actions, specifically directed at the Campsite, gave rise to a special relationship between the State and the Mulveys.
125 To establish a claim of negli-genee, a plaintiff must first show "that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty."17 This showing is more complicated when the government is the defendant. Under the public duty doctrine, the general duty that the government owes to the public does not give rise to a specific duty of care to individuals "unless there is some [special relationship] between the government agency and the individuals that makes it reasonable to impose a duty.18
126 We have always "taken a policy-based approach in determining whether a special relation should be said to exist and consequently whether a duty is owed."19 We carefully consider "the consequences of imposing that duty for the parties and for society." 20 And "[wle are loath to recognize a duty that is realistically incapable of performance or fundamentally at odds with the nature of the parties' relationship." 21 Our determination that a special relationship exists, therefore, "is an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the plaintiff [was] entitled to protection.22
127 Our cases provide at least four circumstances that can give rise to a special relationship:
(1) by a statute intended to protect a specific class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member from a particular type of harm; (2) when a government agent undertakes specific action to protect a person or property; (8) by governmental actions that reasonably induce detrimental reliance by a member of the public; and (4) under certain circumstances, when the agency has actual custody of the plaintiff or of a third person who causes harm to the plaintiff.23
[1096]*1096The second circumstance is relevant to the facts of this case. It presents a two-part question: first, whether the State undertook specific action and, second, whether those actions were intended to protect a person or property.
¶ 28 In analyzing the first question, it is important to note that the term "special relationship" can have different meanings depending on the context.24 In the context of ordinary negligence, "a special relationship is what is required to give rise to a duty to act, whereas the existence of a special relationship relating to a governmental actor can result in the imposition of liability for either her acts or her failure to act." 25 Thus, "(al governmental actor can create a special relationship, where one did not previously exist, by her acts." 26
1 29 The parties in this case do not dispute that the government took specific actions after the bear attacked Mr. Francom at the Campsite. Indeed, after giving up the search for the bear at approximately 5:00 pm. on the day of the attack, DWR agents swept the Campsite to make sure it was unoccupied and free of anything that might induce the bear to return.
130 But acts alone are insufficient to create a special relationship. "[TJhe professional lives of governmental actors are comprised of an unending sequence of actions and failures to act that in many instances can directly affect the health, safety, and general well-being of citizens." 27 We do not hold governmental actors liable "for all mishaps that may befall the public." 28 We must therefore turn to the second question-whether the State's actions were intended to protect a person or property.
$31 We have determined as a matter of public policy "that governmental actors should be answerable in tort when their negligent conduct causes injury to persons who stand so far apart from the general public that we can describe them as having a special relationship to the governmental actor." 29 The State contends that the Mulveys did not "stand apart" from the public because they were not specifically identifiable when the State cleared the Campsite. We disagree that a lack of knowledge as to the specific identity of an individual necessarily precludes a special relationship under the public duty doctrine in all cases.
132 We draw support for this conclusion from our decision in Higgins v. Salt Lake County. In that case, we discussed the standard for establishing a special relationship "in the context of an action against [a] state hospital for harm caused to a member of the public by an escaped patient." 30 We stated that "it must be shown that the custodian knew or should have known that unless steps were taken to protect others from the detainee, he or she was likely to cause bodily harm to persons who were reasonably identifiable by the custodian either individually or as members of a distinct group." 31 We recognized "that when the theoretical danger of the one in custody became sufficiently erys-talized that it took on a specific object and means, it became reasonable to impose a duty" because "the identification of a victim and a means has made it feasible for the custodian to take concrete steps to prevent the harm."32 Higgins demonstrates that "we will find a special relationship and consequent duty when a defendant knew of the likely danger to an individual or distinet group of individuals" 33 Under Higgins, then, it is not necessary that an individual be specifically identifiable if he or she belongs to a distinct group.
[1097]*1097183 Higgins, of course, is not directly on point. The State did not have custody of the bear in the same way it might have custody of a psychiatric patient. But this distinction carries little weight given that, as discussed above, the State undertook specific protective actions after the bear attacked Mr. Francom. It thus had knowledge of a specific threat and took action.34 If it directed its actions at a distinct group, rather than the public at large, our reasoning in Higgins appears directly applicable. And we conclude that the State did, in fact, direct its actions at an identifiable group.
4 34 While the bear was certainly a threat to the public at large, the State's actions demonstrate that the bear posed a particular danger to a more distinct group-those who would occupy the Campsite before the bear was destroyed. After giving up their search for the bear, the DWR agents took specific steps to protect those who might occupy the Campsite. They did so because they knew the bear would likely return to the Campsite if attracted and that humans could act as an attractant. Accordingly, just before leaving the area, the DWR agents swept the Campsite to make sure it was unoccupied and clean of attractants. Thus, the State had knowledge of a specific threat to a distinct group and took specific action to protect that group. The State therefore had a special relationship with those who might occupy the Campsite-here, the Mulveys-even if they were not individually identifiable when the State cleared the Campsite.
{35 Additionally, the Mulveys themselves were "reasonably identifiable" as the next group to use the Campsite. The DWR agents who swept the Campsite waved to them as they drove down Timpooneke Road in the direction of the Campsite. The Campsite was only one of a few on the dead-end Timpooneke Road. So although DWR could not specifically identify the Mulveys when its agents swept the Campsite, it nevertheless had reason to believe that the Mulveys could use the Campsite and could therefore be at risk.
T 36 Finally, we note that, like in Higgins, it is reasonable as a matter of public policy to impose a duty on the State because it was "feasible for the [State] to take concrete steps to prevent the harm."35 After the bear attacked Mr. Francom, the threat the bear posed was no longer theoretical. The DWR agents knew that the Campsite was the best place to apprehend the bear because bears frequently return to locations where they have previously found food. They also knew that humans can act as bear attractants. The risk of another bear attack for those who might occupy the Campsite had thus "erystalized." 36 Accordingly, imposing a duty here is not "realistically incapable of performance [njlor fundamentally at odds with the nature of the parties' relationship." 37
137 Further, finding a special relationship under these facts does not threaten to subject the State to a general negligence scheme.38 We conclude only that the State owed a duty to the Mulveys as the next group to use the Campsite-the group that DWR took specific action to protect. The class of people with which the State had a special relationship is, therefore, very narrow.
[1098]*109838 Based on the foregoing, we hold that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment on the basis that the State owed no duty to the Mulveys. We next consider whether the State is immune from liability under the Immunity Act.
III. WE CONCLUDE THAT THE BEAR WAS NOT A NATURAL CONDITION ON THE LAND AND, AS A RESULT, THAT THE STATE IS NOT IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY UNDER THE IMMUNITY ACT
139 The State alternatively asserts that it is immune from liability under the natural condition exception to the Immunity Act. Plaintiffs counter that the exception does not apply because "wildlife is not a condition [on] land."39 [Tjo determine whether a governmental entity is immune from suit under the Act, we apply a three-part test, which assesses (1) whether the activity undertaken is a governmental funetion; (2) whether governmental immunity was waived for the particular activity; and (3) whether there is an exception to that waiver." 40 Since the parties do not contest the first two prongs of the test, we focus our analysis only on the applicability of the natural condition exception.
140 Utah Code section 68G-T-801(5)(k) immunizes the State from liability in those instances where the plaintiffs' injury "arises out of, in connection with, or results from ... any natural condition on publicly owned or controlled lands." The State argues that Utah's native black bears are such a natural condition and that the State is therefore immune from liability. Plaintiffs counter that a bear is not a natural condition as contemplated by the statute. We agree with Plaintiffs and conclude that a bear is not a "natural condition on publicly owned or controlled lands."
$41 Whether indigenous wildlife is a "natural condition" on public land is an issue of statutory interpretation. "When interpreting a statute, our goal is to give effect to the legislature's intent and purpose." 41 To determine legislative intent, "we begin with the statute's plain language.42 And "[wlhen discerning the plain meaning of the statute, terms that are used in common, daily, nontechnical speech, should, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intent, be given the meaning which they have for laymen in such daily usage."43
4 42 Based on these principles of statutory interpretation, we construe the term "natural condition" in light of its ordinary meaning, as laymen would use it in daily usage. In our view, one would not ordinarily refer to a bear, or wildlife generally, as a "condition" on the land. The more ordinary meaning of a "condition on the land" seems to connote features that have a much closer tie to the land itself, such as rivers, lakes, or trees. These conditions are more directly a part of and persist "on the land," whereas a bear is much more transitory in nature. We accordingly limit application of the natural condition exception to those conditions that are closely tied to the land or that persist "on the land"-conditions that are topographical in nature.44
[1099]*109943 This interpretation is consistent with our previous decisions applying the natural condition exception. Most recently, in Grappendorf v. Pleasant Grove City, we undertook a "careful analysis" of the natural condition exception.45 We defined "natural" to mean "[plresent in or produced by nature."46 We then recognized that "[the word natural modifies 'condition,' which is generally understood as a '[mjode or state of being."" 47 We stated that, in context of the phrase "on publicly owned or controlled lands," the use of the word "on" means a "[plosition above and in contact with or [clontact with a surface, regardless of position."48 Finally, we concluded that "[from these definitions, it follows that a natural condition 'on' the land must be topographical in nature." 49 Based on this plain-language analysis, we concluded that a "gust of wind ... does not fall under the natural condition exception." 50
{44 We noted in Grappendorf that our decision to exclude a gust of wind from the natural condition exception was consistent with our other decisions applying the natural condition exception.51 In Stuckman ex rel. Nelson v. Salt Lake City, we suggested that a river would qualify as a natural condition on the land.52 Later, in Blackner v. Department of Transportation, we concluded that avalanches, and the snowpack from which they originate, are also natural conditions on the land.53 These opinions collectively dem[1100]*1100onstrate that, to be a natural condition on the land, the condition must be topographical in nature, like the river in Nelson and the snow-pack and avalanche in Blackner. We accordingly exclude wildlife from the natural condition exception because wildlife-like a gust of wind-is not topographical in nature.
145 There are, of course, differences between a gust of wind and wildlife. And we readily acknowledge that wildlife could plausibly fall within the scope of the natural condition exception. But we must exercise caution when interpreting an inexact term like "condition," since its meaning could be stretched to include almost anything. As we stated in Grappendorf; "natural conditions include laws of physics, such as gravity, that necessarily contribute to any accident or occurrence." 54 Our duty when interpreting a statute, however, is "to give effect to the legislature's intent and purpose.55 And, in our view, the legislature did not intend to waive immunity for a gust of wind but retain it for indigenous wildlife when both seem to fall outside the ordinary meaning of a "condition on land."
46 This is especially true given that the legislature could easily have stated expressly that the State retains immunity for injuries arising from indigenous wildlife. While the legislature cannot anticipate every incident that may occur in our state's vast public lands, it seems particularly obvious that injury will arise from the public's inevitable confrontations with wildlife. Given this obvious risk, it seems somewhat unlikely that the legislature would use the term "natural condition" to retain immunity from injuries arising out of or in connection with bears or other wildlife.56
147 Finally, we note that our interpretation is also supported by the structure of the Immunity Act. A fundamental rule of statutory construction provides that "[wlhere a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the exceptions."57 The Immunity Act sets forth a number of broad waivers of immunity, including waiver "as to any injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of an employee committed within the scope of employment." 58 It then reinstates immunity through specific, enumerated exceptions to the broad waivers of immunity.59 Thus, we resolve any doubt as to whether the legislature intended one of the exceptions-the natural condition exception-to cover wildlife in favor of the Immunity Act's general waiver of immunity.60
[1101]*1101148 For these reasons, we hold that wildlife like the bear at issue in this case is not a "natural condition on the land" under Utah Code section 68G-7-801(5)(k). We therefore conclude that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment for the State on the basis of natural condition immunity.
CONCLUSION
149 The district court erred in granting the State's motion for summary judgment in this case. We conclude that, although the plaintiffs' law of the case argument is inapplicable because there was nothing in Francis I that prevented the State from raising its alternative arguments on remand, the district court nevertheless erred in concluding that the State did not owe a duty to the Mulveys and that the natural condition exception applied. We therefore reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Chief Justice DURRANT authored the opinion of the court, in which Associate Chief Justice NEHRING and Justice DURHAM concurred.
Justice PARRISH filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice LEE joined.
The Court has rewritten the third sentence in paragraph 47.