Road collisions involving wild animals pose a serious problem for drivers, especially in forested and suburban areas. In such situations, it's crucial to understand when you can pursue compensation for damages resulting from a collision with an animal. Road markings and the road operator's liability play a key role here.
A fundamental aspect in considering compensation options is the presence of signs warning of wild animals. Sign A-18b, depicting the silhouette of a leaping deer, warns drivers of the increased risk of an animal entering the roadway. If such a sign is placed in a given location, the driver is obligated to exercise extreme caution. In practice, this means reducing speed and increasing vigilance. In the event of a collision in an area marked with this sign, obtaining compensation from the road authority may be difficult, as it can be argued that the driver failed to heed the warning.
According to the Supreme Court judgment of October 7, 2021, II CSKP 142/2, "Failure to place a road sign A-I8b, i.e. "wild animals", in a place where its placement would be justified, constitutes a failure to fulfill the obligation incumbent on the road manager. This leads to a lack of caution by the driver of a motor vehicle and, consequently, a collision with a wild animal and causing damage. The State Treasury is not liable in the event of a collision between an animal and a vehicle, unless the incident occurred in an area justifying the installation of a warning road sign. A contrario, the liability of the State Treasury - its organizational unit acting as the road manager, is activated only in the event of damage occurring in areas characterized by the occurrence of wild animals, with the sine qua non condition being the demonstration of a causal link. It is the road manager, as the competent authority for ensuring traffic safety, that should decide on the principles of guiding driver behavior, introducing, among others, speed limits in places that pose a safety risk – with clearly confirmed, permanent threats, including threats resulting from local environmental conditions.”
However, if there was no warning sign at the scene of the incident and the area is known for frequent wildlife incursions, it is possible to pursue a claim against the road operator. Failure to provide appropriate signage may constitute negligence, opening the door to a compensation claim. However, it will be crucial to demonstrate that the relevant authorities were aware of the hazard and failed to take action to warn drivers. Road operators are expected to actively monitor hazards and continually update safety information, which they should convey to users through appropriate road markings, including the installation or removal of appropriate warning signs.
It is also worth paying attention to the Supreme Court judgment of 19 April 1974 (ref. II CR 157/74), in which it was stated that the State Treasury is not liable for damage caused on a public road as a result of a collision between a wild animal and a motor vehicle, if the event took place outside the area where there were grounds for placing a warning road sign.
In addition to the road authority's liability, vehicle insurance can be a significant source of compensation. If the driver has comprehensive motor insurance (AC), damage resulting from a collision with a wild animal is usually covered. However, it's worth checking the general terms and conditions of insurance, as some policies may require specific conditions, such as reporting the incident to the police, to receive appropriate compensation.
If the animal was under the care of a specific institution, such as a forest district or hunting club, it is possible to pursue claims against these entities. This applies primarily to situations in which the animal escaped from a controlled area, for example, through a damaged hunting ground fence. In such cases, proving negligence on the part of the responsible institution will be crucial.
In summary, the possibility of obtaining compensation for a collision with a wild animal depends on several factors. The decisive factors are road markings, insurance coverage, and the potential liability of the road operator or animal control agency. Therefore, the road operator's liability is triggered if the incident occurs in an area where a warning road sign should have been placed but was not. The burden of proving the above circumstances of the operator's negligence or breach of duty rests with the injured party seeking compensation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of April 1, 2025
author/editor of the series:
Be the first to receive our articles and legal alerts, straight to your inbox! Sign up for our newsletter by clicking the link or contact us at social@kglegal.pl to personalize your content.
