opinions on what would be fair and appropriate rather than particular 'correct' answers.

Scenario 1: Karl and Nathan were friends and went camping in the woods. Karl had a rifle. He left the cabin to go for a walk and when he returned found Nathan asleep in the top bunk in the cabin. While holding the loaded rifle, Karl jumped up to the lower bunk in order to awaken Nathan. Karl lost his footing while he jumped, and fell. The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet struck Nathan in the head, killing him instantly. There was no evidence that Karl intended to aim the gun at Nathan, let alone harm him. In your opinion, should Karl be held criminally responsible for Nathan's death? Why?

Scenario 2: Simon-Pierre went to a restaurant and ordered a beef tartare. He alerted the waiter that he was allergic to salmon and seafood, but the waiter took no notes of the order and did not pass the information on to the kitchen staff. When food arrived Simon-Pierre took a bite of his food. It turned out it was salmon tartare, not beef tartare. Simon-Pierre left his EpiPen in the car and without it, he quickly went into anaphylactic shock, was taken to a hospital, suffered a cardiac arrest and was in a coma for several days. Luckily, he recovered. In your opinion, should the waiter be held criminally responsible? Why? (if it should be held criminally responsible, a likely charge would be criminal negligence causing bodily harm, which is defined as showing wanton and reckless disregard for life and safety of others).