It depends on whether that state has a fence law.
Does anyone know?
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/nv_fnc.htm
568.360. Duties of owners of domestic animals with respect to domestic animals upon the highway
1. No person, firm or corporation owning, controlling or in possession of any domestic animal running on open range has the duty to keep the animal off any highway traversing or located on the open range, and no such person, firm or corporation is liable for damages to any property or for injury to any person caused by any collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on such a highway.
2. Any person, firm or corporation negligently allowing a domestic animal to enter within a fenced right of way of a highway is liable for damages caused by a collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on the highway.
So I guess that as in everything legal, the answer is “yes and no”.
Bundy is covered by the “open range law”.
Basically, if he did not intentionally graze his cattle on the right of way, he is not responsible.
The city folk that have moved to thw state don;t like that and are trying to change it, but it is the law, for now.
East of the Mississippi, , there is no open range law, it is “fence them in”. The morons the gooberment hires aren’t from the area and are ignorant of the law.
From the story: "In a statement Thursday, Mary Martini, district engineer for the Nevada Department of Transportation in Las Vegas, said that while the state maintains the fences along I-15 to “designate the right of way” and control access, “it is always the responsibility and liability of the owners to control their animals."
So if the state did have a fence designating the right of way, and Bundy allowed his cow to ener into the fenced right of way, then he's liable.