On what basis has the California Injury Act been interpreted to require that an injury arising out of the employment is not an accident?

On the other hand, the statute requires that an injury "arise out of" the employment. Whether this standard has been met in this case is a more difficult question. It has long been settled that for an injury to "arise out of the employment" it must "occur by reason of a condition or incident of [the] employment ...." (Employers etc. Ins. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 676, 679, [33 Cal.3d 734] 263 P.2d 4.) That is, the employment and the injury must be linked in some causal fashion. (Kimbol v. Industrial Acc. Commission (1916) 173 Cal. 351, 353, 160 P. 150.) However, "[i]f we look for a causal connection between the employment and the injury, such connection need not be the sole cause; it is sufficient if it is a contributory cause. [Citation.]" (Employers etc. Ins. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com., supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 680, 263 P.2d 4.) ³

Page 907