In Ledfors v. Emery County School District, 849 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1993), the Court clarified that determining whether a governmental entity is immune from suit under the Act requires the court to answer three questions: (1) Was the activity the entity performed a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in section 63-30-3 of the Utah Code? (2) If the activity undertaken was a governmental function, has some other section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? (3) If the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a retention of immunity against the particular claim asserted in this case? (Id. at 1164.) The Court explained the analytical framework for determining whether a governmental entity is immune from suit under the Act. The Ledfors framework suggests a three-step inquiry: First, was the activity the entity performed a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in section 63-30-3? Utah Code Ann. 63-30-3 (1989) now codified at section 63-30-3(1). Second, if the activity was a governmental function, has some other section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? Third, if the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a retention of immunity against the particular claim asserted in this case? (Id. at 1164.) In Ledfors, the court expressed sympathy for the plight of a child viciously beaten by other students during an unsupervised physical education class, but again deferred to the legislature: It is unfortunate that any parent who is required by state law to send his or her child to school lacks a civil remedy against negligent school personnel who fail to assure the child's safety at school. Nevertheless . . . we are constrained by . . . the Act . . . . It is however entirely within the legislature's power to permit all plaintiffs to whom the government owes a duty of care based on a special relationship to bring suit for injuries arising out of a breach of that duty. (Ledfors, 849 P.2d at 1167.)