In exchange for a pretty much guaranteed payout, employees give up any general damages - all you can get is medical bills plus a lump sum for disability (or a monthly payment for temporary disability). There's not a lot of money in it for the ambulance chasers, they are after the big tort verdicts with general damages, pain & suffering, emotional distress, etc. etc. The guys who do this tend to work volume for a small fee.
Employers, on the other hand, in exchange for a reduced payout, give up the usual tort defenses such as contributory negligence, etc. A defense of "wilful misconduct" is generally still available, but the required level of proof is pretty high, and you also have to prove causation.
It's a little hard to tell from the article, but it appears that the court rejected a wilful misconduct defense, finding a lack of causation between Hopkins's use of weed and the mauling. If he had gotten high (or drunk) and driven a motor vehicle or operated machinery, I think you'd see a different result due to wilful misconduct causing the injury.
I'm thinking this aspect will be cited even though . . . Hopkins fed the bears that day after Kilpatrick told him not to because he was tapering their food as they prepared for hibernation, Kilpatrick said.
If the owner did tell Hopkins not to feed the bear and the Hopkins got loaded and did it anyway, was that not literally 'willful misconduct'?
I'm glad the guy got stitched back together, but I can't help but think this will be precedence for "the pot made him do it and there's nothing wrong with that" defence.
(At this point it may be obvious that I lack any legal training whatsoever, but that won't stop me from arguing.)