[Vigilanteman]

I fully expect that the foreign lessee factored this into the equation and made the state either grant immunity or assume risk for incidents like the I-35W bridge. Big government is fond of exempting itself from rules and risks which they impose on others. It only stands to reason that “partnerships” which provide it a revenue stream would insist on the same types of protection.

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think a government can ever grant “immunity” up front like that. The state may indemnify the lessee in certain cases of liability, but I don’t see how a blanket indemnification could ever stand up in a court of law.