I do not have first hand knowledge of this case but this much should be obvious to anyone. If it was a direct line of fire incident and not a ricohet then she should own his a$$ when this is over. One doesn't need legal training to to recognize that.
You admit you don't have first hand knowledge of what happened , yet you have no problem condemming a fellow hunter when you obviously don't have all the facts. It may have been a direct line of fire accident ,but the PGC admitted the hunter couldn't see the house or the car from where he was standing. He fired into a grove of treees expecting the bullet would be stopped by a tree just like a hunter in a woodlot.
Furthermore , I doubt if very many hunters in a woodlot could accurately locate the houses within half a mile of that would lot unless they were visible. BTW, you need more than legal training , you need some common sense and the realization that accidents do happen even when we are doing our best to hunt safely. In fact, I belive there was an acident this year where a hunter was shot by another hunter in the woods and the PGC found that the hunter that was hit was not visible to the hunter that fired the shot. Should that hunter be sued and loose everything he has?