Credible evidence supports the Commission’s finding that the claimant’s act of entering the employer’s machinery area without using the gate, which would have deactivated the equipment, proximately caused his injury. The Commission also did not err in concluding that the employer enforced the safety rule.
Instead of following the employer’s safety rule, the claimant circumvented the gate and entered the area through a small opening not designed for ingress while the machines continued to operate. If the claimant had entered the area through the gate and thereby automatically shut down the machinery before entering the area, the accident wouldn’t have occurred. The claimant acknowledged that the safety rule was enforced.