Can state entities claim immunity for federal permitting decisions? Francis v. State Explained

In Francis v. State, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a state entity can claim governmental immunity under the permit exception when only the federal government has authority over the relevant permitting decisions.

Background and Facts

Eleven-year-old Samuel Ives was killed by a black bear while camping with his family on federal land in American Fork Canyon. Earlier that day, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) had been alerted to a bear attack at the same campsite and conducted an unsuccessful search for the animal. Despite determining the bear was a “Level III nuisance” that needed to be destroyed, DWR agents did not post warnings at the campsite or request that the U.S. Forest Service close the area. The Ives family arrived unaware of the earlier attack and Samuel was killed that night.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the State could claim immunity under the Governmental Immunity Act’s permit exception, which protects entities from liability arising from “the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization.” The State argued that Samuel’s death arose from its failure to request federal closure of the campsite.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court rejected the State’s immunity claim, emphasizing the plain language of the permit exception. The court held that to invoke the exception, the governmental entity must have actual authority to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke permits. Here, it was undisputed that only the federal government owned the land and possessed authority to close the campsite. The court stated that “[g]overnment entities, like the State here, may not look to the authority of the United States to grant or revoke approval to camp on federally-controlled lands and import provisions of the Governmental Immunity Act at their pleasure to shield themselves from claims of negligence.”

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that governmental immunity exceptions must be tied to the specific entity’s actual authority and responsibilities. State entities cannot claim immunity based on federal permitting powers they do not possess. The court also declined to address the State’s alternative arguments regarding the public duty doctrine and natural condition exception because they were not preserved below and were not “apparent on the record,” reinforcing the importance of proper preservation of issues for appeal.