I do believe that the concept of negligence itself is a tort only and therefore is civil. What I'm saying is there is no actual "criminal negligence". Negligence is a civil issue, not a criminal one. Atleast that's what I was taught in college where I minored in paralegal studies. So although it doesn't excuse this person's behavior or make it right, it is not a crime to be negligent. Although criminal charges have been overturned as a result of the appeals process the Defendant can still be sued civily by the victim's family members and be held accountable monetarily. Also, when the Defendant and his/her lawyer appeal to a higher Court the basis of the lawyer submits what is called an appellate brief. Basically a well organized argument summarily requesting that the conviction be overturned...however the appellate brief must clearly demonstrate that the former presiding Justice made an error of law or did not follow precedent when making their decision. The appellate Court cannot overturn the decision because the individual or group of Justice's feel or personally believe that crossing the center line and/or taking a life or several as in this case does not constitute criminal negligence. If case law however did state that crossing the center line constitutes criminal negligence, then the initial Justice ruled correctly as the Court is required to apply precedent. However we then again go back to my first point...I do believe it is not a crime to be negligent, it is a tort. My .02 anyway. It's still a tragedy that these people lost their lives regardless
