Raivo already gave quite a comprehensive reply, so I just wanted to bring a few relevant quotes from some of the Bhantes replies to your attention and add a discussion of your example. (My appologies if you saw the quoted posts yourself in the meantime):
I agree with you that everything we do has a consequence, but kamma, is determined by the ethical dimension of the action as Raivo said, even though trying to work out the inner workings of kamma may be limited by the concepts we have at our disposition:
So, if you took all sensible precautions (looked that nobody was close by that could get hurt) and afterwards grab your bag from the overhead compartment and while taking it down hit your ellbow on someones nose, then that action has consequences, but not kammic ones. Maybe the person saw that you were reaching for the overhead compartment. Then, they became impatient and thought that they too should get up and get their stuff sorted. So they manouvered themselves in an unfortunate position. Where could then be your “fault” in this situation. It could still be of course, that the person goes into denial of their own unthoughtful action and yell at you or punch you in the face (though in my experience ususally both sides just utter an embarrased “Sorry! Are you ok?” in such a situation). Then being punched in the face is the fruit (vipaaka) of having been born into the human realm with lots of fellow beeings that are lost in greed, hatred and delusion(*). It is also clearly a consequence to your action, albeit not an ethical one. Also, your feeling of guilt about having hurt the other person will be small, apart from the usual desire to try to avoid such a mishap in the furture. There may also be compassion for the other persons pain.
On the other hand, if you are talking about negligence or even gross negligence (so that you wittingly did not even take the minimum required precautions and hence condoned the harm and damage to others), then of course you are making the kamma of having been neglectful. Negligence is for example also punished by penal consequences in German law. Still, the kamma you are making by negligence it is not the kamma of intentionally banging your ellbow into someones face and you will not feel as guilty as if you had done that in a spur of rage:
So, I did not understand the Bhantes in a way that such unintenional actions have no consequence at all, but the kammic implications for you depend on the stat of your mind, when you did the action. Of course, if greed, hatred or delusion were dominant in the mind, then the kamma is unwholesome. And I agree with you that delusion can express itself as wrong view or negligence.
Maybe also have a look at the Sutta Talk on MN 41 by Bhante Brahmali, which I posted above.
As Raivo pointed out, usually the Bhantes and also Ajahn Brahm seem to try to teach the Dhamma in such a way, that the typical guilt trips are avoided (typical in western culture, where many people who start on the spiritual path have the tendency to overreact). This still means that you have to make an effort to avoid such problems in the future, but the emphasis is on learning and not on blaming.
Regarding your example about food or receiving money by monastics. There is the description of one occasion in the Suttas, when queen Mallikaa (king Pasenadi’s spiritual mother) (? hope I got her name right ?) wanted to go to a festivity fully dressed with garments and jewlery. However, in a spur of the moment, she decided to visit the Buddha instead. Since she thought it was inappropriate to wear her jewlery in front of the monks, she took it off and put it in a bag. After the Buddhas talk she was so inspired that she just forgot the bag with the extremley precious jewlery which was later found by Ananda. He then asked the Buddha what to do. He did not want to touch the jewlery because he thought he would commit an offence, but the Buddha said, that it was ok for him to take the jewlery in order to return it to the queen. So, if a monk finds money in the meditation hall, they can put it away, so that the owner can later retrieve it. Also, if someone would place money in a monks bag without the monk knowing (e.g. when the bag was unattended), this would not be an offence on behalf of the monk. Of course the monk would then have to ask, who the owner of the money is. The money could then be given to the treasurer and if nobody reclaims it after some time, it could be used as a donation for the whole monestary (I guess). The important part here is, I think, that the monk does not knowingly accepts money for his own comfort.
With much mettaa,
(*) Ajahn Brahm said the following a few times. "When we are reborn into the human realm, we sign a contract which includes in small print: ‘Here you can die at any time for any reason or no reason at all.’ "
That a person dies is first of all the kammic fruit (vipaaka) of having been born in the first place. That a person, for example, dies in an accident is the kammic fruit of having been reborn with a fragile human body. However, the rest of the web of conditions that lead up to the accident and ultimately to death of the person may simply have been bad luck (unless it was intention or avoidable negligence on behalf of the some participent in the accident).
Being born as a human being implies that we have senses with limited range and precision. Moreover, even though our senses are already quite limited, there is no way we can be mindful of the full stream of information of all senses at the same time. Hence, we can always only have an incomplete picture of the world around us and we are limited by our bodys with respect to the possible responses. That is the reason why we say that some events are accidents. Things just come together in such a way that it is impossible for an average human being to avoid harming effects.
I think Ajahn Brahm said once that even an Arahant cannot be mindful of all information from all senses at the same time! So even though an Arahant will be deeply rooted in yoniso manasikara (i.e. thorough or wise attention) in every action, he can still end up in a mishap.
Also, consider the example where the Buddha tought the monks the contemplation of the body and the monks ended up commiting suicide (or asking the game keeper to kill them…). I am sure, we would all agree that the Buddha taught that meditation practice with the best of intentions. Also, this meditation is very beneficial if practiced correctly. According to the story, the Buddha then went on a retreat, where he obviously had no idea about what the monks were doing with his teaching. When he returned and found out that the number of monks was quite depleted, he simply adjusted and tought another practice. So even the Buddha could not forsee everything and even he could be misunderstood. (If he could have made himself fully understood to everone whom he met, then they all should have become fully enlightened after hearing one teaching.)