Opinion ID: 1286926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the risk of injury by train while motoring for the master is connected with dulen's employment as a truck driver

Text: An injury is compensable if it arises out of the claimant's employment  i.e., was caused by a risk to which the employee was subjected by his work. [28] Any other notion would impermissibly interject into this State's compensation regime concepts of common-law cause and foreseeability (the legal underpinnings of negligence). [29] The only criterion for compensability is the statute's test of a bifurcated connection-in-fact to the employment. With the enactment of the Workers' Compensation Act in 1915, the servant's culpability has been eliminated as a defense against the master's liability. [30] The record, which reflects several witnesses' testimony that the railroad-crossing equipment malfunctioned, is devoid of any proof that the protective arms were in good working order. The trial tribunal found the equipment's failure was the direct cause of the claimant's injuries. Its finding rests on competent evidence. At the time of Dulen's injuries, he was employed as a Darco truck driver with an assigned task  that of transporting goods to the West Coast. This required his presence on the highways. A causal connection between the act in which Dulen was engaged, when injured, and his job description is clear. [31] Because the perils of this servant's travel for his master are coextensive with the risks of employment, Dulen's injuries undeniably arose out of his work.