When Cwikla improperly coupled the tractor-trailer and when Oliver failed to check the hookup and attach the safety chains, each was acting within the scope of his employment. That Oliver and Cwikla did not heed Steenberg's warnings to use caution and that Oliver did not undertake responsibility for the safety and maintenance of his tractor-trailer does not place their negligent actions outside the scope of employment. Therefore, Steenberg may be liable for the acts of its employees, Oliver and Cwikla. Sufficiency of the Evidence. Rather, the negligent act must rise to the level of criminal negligence.
Criminal negligence differs from ordinary negligence in two respects.
First, the risk is more serious-death or great bodily harm as opposed to simple harm. Second, the risk must be more than an unreasonable risk-it must also be substantial. Criminal negligence involves the same degree of risk as criminal recklessness-an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm. The difference between the two is that recklessness requires that the actor be subjectively aware of the risk, while criminal negligence requires only that the actor should have been aware of the risk-an objective standard. Those guidelines put the corporation on notice that working in the vicinity of high voltage electrical lines posed a substantial risk to its employees.