regulation requiring that machinery and equipment “be maintained in safe operating condition and machinery or equipment in unsafe condition shall be removed from service immediately” was not sufficient to satisfy third element of deliberate intent claim because it is “exactly the kind of general safety provision that the statute itself declares insufficient”); Coe v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:11CV113, 2013 WL 140107, *8 (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 10, 2013) (finding that federal regulations could not support deliberate intent claim because they expressed “generalized goals” of safety and cleanliness not specific to particular work and working condition involved); Bowden v. Frito-Lay, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:09-cv-00914, 2010 WL 3835222, *8 (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 28, 2010) (<HOLDING>); Greene v. Carolina Freight Carriers, 663
holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation holding that breach of a statutory standard creates liability to innocent third parties who come within the protection of the statute only where breached by the person upon whom the statute imposes specific duties holding regulation imposing general safety requirement upon employers with no specific requirements or duties failed to establish third prong of deliberate intent statute holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law