It is clearly civil negligence. Anytime you fire a gun, you are responsible for where it hits. Firearms give strict liability - you are absolutely responsible for what you hit.
Criminal liablity, on the other hand, would be a quite a stretch. An argument could be made, but it's probably a loser.
On the bar exam you have to make it. But then you also have to explain why it's a loser.
BTW, when are you set to sit?
I continue to think that there was no negligence on Cheney's part SINCE the man hit was part of a team; a participation that carried certain expectations with it.
That mitigates.
Especially, if as I've read, the man was in brush in an area that he as a team memeber knew he should not be occupying. I see no negligence on Cheney's part, if words have any meaning at all.
There is a no fault accident or the other hunter was negligent