parked on the shoulder of a country road. Id. at 504-05, 82 P.2 , 672 (1954) (stating that “[t]he wanton and reckless operation of an automobile which must be shown as the proximate cause of a death in order to secure a conviction for involuntary manslaughter where a human is killed by an automobile being driven by another is not differ , and cert. dismissed, 342 Md. 403, 676 A.2d 513 (1996). 15. The majority of jurisdictions require that the predicate offense involves criminal negligence or recklessness. See, e.g., State v. Puryear, 121 Ariz. 359, 590 P.2d 475, 479-80 (App.1979) (rejecting the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum, and requiring at least criminal negligence for involuntary manslaughter conviction); People v. Stuart, 47 Cal.2d 167, 302 P.2d 5, 9 (1956) (<HOLDING>); State v. Conner, 292 N.W.2d 682, 686 (Iowa
holding that im proper means may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation or a recognized rule of common law or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession holding that the misdemeanormanslaughter rule requires a showing of intent or the commission of an act in such a maimer as to make the killing of deceased a natural or probable result of such conduct holding that a pharmacist has a duty to warn when he or she knows of a risk to that particular customer holding that a pharmacist could only be criminally liable under the misdemeanormanslaughter rule if he had intentionally or through criminal negligence prepared compounded or sold an adulterated or misbranded drug in violation of the statute holding that an employees inadvertence ordinary negli genee poor judgment or inattention does not constitute misconducttherefore we conclude further findings are required regarding claimants mens rea at the time of the incidents that gave rise to her discharge from employmentvil violation of company rulewe reject employers argument that disqualification is appropriate under section 8781085evii crs2009 that seetion permits disqualification as relevant here if there is evidence that claimant engaged in theviolation of a statute or of a company rule which resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employers property or interests or could have endangered the life of the worker or other persons such as mistreatment of patients in a hospital or nursing home serving liquor to minors selling prescription items without prescriptions from licensed doctors immoral conduct which has an effect on workers job status divulging of confidential information which resulted or could have resulted in damage to the employers interests failure to observe conspicuously posted safety rules intentional falsification of expense accounts inventories or other reeords or reports whether or not substantial harm or injury was incurred or removal or attempted removal of employers property from the premises of the employer without proper authorityhere there is no evidence in the record that claimants actions resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employers property or interests or could have endangered the life of the worker or other personsthe panels order is set aside and the case is remanded to the panel with instructions to remand the case to the hearing officer on remand the hearing officer shall determine based on the evidence in the record whether claimant had a good faith but mistaken belief the toilet paper remnants she took had been discarded or abandoned by employer if so the hearing officer shall award her benefits if the hearing officer determines that claimant not only acted volitionally but also had the requisite knowledge and intent to deprive her employer of its property at the time of the actions alleged in this case she is not entitled to benefitsjudge hawthorne and judge terry concursitting by assignment of the chief justice under provisions of colo const art vi  53