When my wife was in law school, she was taught that in crimes lacking intent, you had to look at what a “reasonable” person would expect as an outcome to determine fault or, possibly negligence.
I like to apply this logic to “accidents”.
For example, would a “reasonable person” expect that having sex without birth control is likely to result in pregnancy? Yes. Therefore, if you become or get someone pregnant and were not on birth control, don’t tell me it’s an “accident”. It was poor judgement.
Would a reasonable person expect that driving above the speed limit in a snow storm is likely to result in an accident? Yes.
Would a reasonable person expect that standing on your tip-toes at the very top of a ladder is likely to result in a fall? Yes.
And so on.
Now, there are variables of course.
For example someone might fully understand the possibility for disaster (a reasonable person) but choose to do it anyway because they feel the potential gain outweighs the risks. But if something does go wrong, still not an accident. Simply a considered judgement that did not pay off as hoped.
To me, a true “accident” is when someone engages in an activity that a “reasonable person” would consider low risk (based on a variety of factors) and something unexpected happens.
You cross a street at a crosswalk, with the light, look both ways, and a car comes out of nowhere and hits you. That’s an accident (at least for you). Now, if the driver was drunk, or speeding, it is not an accident for him. He is instead, the cause of the accident for you. Specifically, his bad judgement caused your accident.
So the two go hand in hand sometimes.