Not all the voters I think if you look at it he did a structural deficit to look good politically in hopes of being re-elected. He did refuse millions (maybe billions?) from the feds for high speed rail and health care expansion. The childless poor there have no health care to this day.

There will be no duking, that place is one party control. The only possible controls seem to be the courts trying to apply constitutionality and how close they get to the fringe of rebellion.

I don't know, do you? Or was that meant to be a rhetorical argument. In which case, I am confused.

I think it does not matter if there was no intent to injure. the damage was done in the course of the job. It would seem to be covered under workmans comp if it were in the private sector.

If someone trips and falls on my property and is injured I don't have to be negligant to pay for their damages. If I am negligent I would likely be subject to punitive damages though.

I'm not a lawyer but i slept in a Holiday Inn select recently.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I though the asbestos settlement gig went full circle and is basically done as far as litigation is concerned.

Care to share?

The asbestos ambulance chaser are all over TV.

Defective product cases don't require intent. Along those lines, negligence cases don't require intent. It's when your claim includes punitive or exemplary damages, beyond mere compensation, that the proof requires showing careless disregard, extreme bad behavior or actions which are known to likely cause harm.