I'm still trying to come to terms with a manufacturer building an aeroplane which is capable of entering a spin and then not bothering to develop a recovery procedure! Relying on a ballistic parachute system for aircraft recovery after a spin seems to be akin to throwing their hands up in horror and saying "too hard". Once the 'chute is deployed the aircraft is uncontrollable. Almost any other aircraft remains totally controllable after spin recovery is achieved.
At what point does negligence enter the equation? If negligence is defined as a repeated series of events or omissions which result in an accident, isn't Cirrus Design at least partly negligent by designing, building and selling multiple aircraft which can be spun without developing a procedure for recovery from the spin which leaves the pilot back in control, like any other aircraft?
Or have we reached a situation where basic "stick and rudder" skills no longer required in modern aviation?