...crossing the center line

[Nadia]

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

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Nadia

...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...(

Negligence in New Hampshire is indeed, under certain circumstances, a criminal element in the State of New Hampshire and clearly defined under our State's criminal code.

From RSA 626:2 (Criminal Code General Principals):

...(d) ""Negligently.'' A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he fails to become aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that his failure to become aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation...


Of particular relevance to this discussion would be the crime of Negligent Homicide:

630:3 Negligent Homicide. –
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony when he causes the death of another negligently.
II. A person is guilty of a class A felony when in consequence of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drug while operating a propelled vehicle, as defined in RSA 637:9, III or a boat as defined in RSA 265-A:1, II, he or she causes the death of another.
III. In addition to any other penalty imposed, if the death of another person resulted from the negligent driving of a motor vehicle, the court may revoke the license or driving privilege of the convicted person for up to 7 years. In cases where the person is convicted under paragraph II, the court shall revoke the license or driving privilege of the convicted person indefinitely and the person shall not petition for eligibility to reapply for a driver's license for at least 7 years. In a case in which alcohol was involved, the court may also require that the convicted person shall not have a license to drive reinstated until after the division of motor vehicles receives certification of installation of an ignition interlock device as described in RSA 265-A:36, which shall remain in place for a period not to exceed 5 years.

So indeed negligence is clearly an element on this State's Criminal Code, as well as it's clearly civil tort aspects.