Well if the McCanns have been judged not to have been negligent leaving the children when one of them was abducted, then I doubt if they would be found negligent if one of them had an accident.
They were judged not to have 'intent' to harm, correct me if that is wrong. In my opinion that means they thought the children were safe as they were checking on them at regular intervals.
I think that the question of negligence is markedly different where the outcome is serious ( or fatal ) injury, rather than abduction
It is with regard to the 'wilfull' aspect described in a post above
In law the term 'wilfull' is not only used with regard to
intent ... it also applies where an act ( or omission ) is
'knowingly' undertaken
The McCanns could not reasonably have been expected to factor in the possible risk of abduction, because that risk was so remote and unforeseeable. They did not wilfully ( knowingly ) expose her to that risk because they were not
aware of it
The possible risk of accident or injury to a young child who has woken and wondered, though, is not remote or unforseeable ... and is one the McCanns could reasonably be expected to be aware of
Their decision to place their children at that risk was, therefore, made wilfully ( knowingly )
If the eventual outcome of their decisions
had resulted in a serious ( or fatal ) injury then it could be suggested that it was their wilfull disregard of a 'known' risk that had lead to it, and a negligence charge appropriate
