TRENTON, N.J. A state appeals court decision in New Jersey offers a fresh reminder why workers compensation insurance doesnt just protect employees, it also protects employers.

In the case, a two-judged panel of the state Superior Court ruled that a truck driver struck by a car while making an early-morning delivery at a Taco Bell could not collect damages from his employer because his injuries entitled him to workers' compensation benefits and thats all.

The decision affirmed a lower court ruling in the suit brought by truck driver Joseph Dadura Jr. against his employer, McLane Co. Inc., a company wholly owned by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

A car, driven by a man who fell asleep at the wheel, hit Dadura while he was unloading food from his truck, which was double parked in West New York, N.J., in January 2003, according to court documents.

Dadura had turned on the truck's four-way lights but did not set up traffic cones, flags or other safety paraphernalia since none had been issued by his employer. He also had not been trained on how to make deliveries at that stop, he said in his court filings.

In his suit, Dadura maintained he had repeatedly warned his supervisors of the dangers he faced while having to double-park the truck for deliveries at the Taco Bell. Those warnings went unheeded, Dadura asserted, and he was threatened with firing if he refused to continue the deliveries.

He had sued Wal-Mart and McLane, and also the Taco Bell and its owners, alleging their liability for the serious injuries he sustained. He argued the delivery company should have realized the high likelihood of his injuries occurring and its failure to take steps to prevent them constituted gross negligence on its part.

Dadura did not, however, sue the driver of the car -- who was given three years probation for his role in the crash. In 2006, his claims against the Taco Bell were dismissed.

In dismissing Daduras claims against Wal-Mart and McLane, the judges said there was not enough evidence in the case to show the companies "deliberately intended to harm (Dadura) or knew that the consequences of its inaction were substantially certain to result in harm" -- an exception to the state workers compensation law which might have entitled him to damages.

In other words, Dadura was not entitled to recover civil damages in court for work-related injuries because the employer carried workers comp insurance. Under the law in most states, all claims must be resolved within the confines of the workers compensation policy.