Abstract
Despite proven effectiveness in reducing motorist crashes involving wildlife, systematic inclusion of wildlife-mitigation measures during highway planning and projects continues to vary by jurisdiction in the United States and Canada. Some agencies invest significant resources to reduce wildlife–vehicle collisions (WVCs), while others invest few or no resources. Various factors have been identified as relevant in explaining why some jurisdictions are more proactive than others in addressing WVCs. This analysis builds on existing literature by comparing select legal decisions in the United States and Canada regarding public authority liability for failures to remediate known WVC hot spots, with the goal of assessing the potential role of liability in creating incentives for government decision makers to systematically address motorist crashes involving animals.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
