I forget the name of thefamous fox case, but if my memory is right, ownership of a downed game animal doesn't attach until it's actually dead.As long as it's still on its feet, it is still property of the state. I just don't see howa hunter could be liable for the actions of a state-owned, independent, unpredictableentity (like a deer).

On the other hand:If an experiencedhunter should unleash an instrumentality that foreseeably produces a high likelihood of the wounded deer stumbling into a roadway, I could see how there's a breach of duty of care running from the hunter to motorists passing by. It only seems reasonable that a guy sitting in a treestand along a highway DOES have some duty to refrain from engaging in anything likely to put passing motorists in jeopardy. Duty Breach Causation Damage.

I guess if you view a deer as a wholly unpredictable entity, then it gives Joe Hunter carte blanche to act without regard to passing motorists, as the deer itself will make the volitional decision to leap into traffic or not. On the other hand, if you know that your deer drive is likely to push a herd across the turnpike, and potentially result in an automobile collision, you're taking a known risk, disregarding it and negligently proceeding. It's really not muchdifferent than standing on the highway embankment and rolling a tire down the hill, knowing that there's a good chance that the tire stays upright long enough to enter the lanes of travel and create a perilous situation.

I do happen to know that the owner of livestock that wanders into a roadway is liable for damage caused by his negligence. Liability can also attach to a licensee (maybe a utility employee) who leaves a farm gate open, and the horse wanders into the roadway. People can be liable for acts of animals that were under their control. BUT, is a deer really an instrumentality under the control of the hunter. I would say that it certainly can be, in some circumstances.

Stumper.