successfully asserted that he was not an Indian in federal court for purposes of the Major Crimes Act). A party cannot play “fast and loose” with a court by changing legal positions in the midst of a suit. Citizens Bank v. C & H Constr. & Paving Co., 89 N.M. 360, 367, 552 P.2d 796, 803 (Ct.App.1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). {13} Defendants successfully argued inconsistent positions. First they successfully argued the position that the Guzmans had no remedy through workers’ compensation because, since Anthony had already left work, his death was not within the course and scope of his employment. Implicit in this position is a denial of negligence on their part in relation to his death. See Espinosa v. Albuquerque Publ’g Co., 1997-NMCA-072, ¶ 13, 123 N.M. 605, 943 P.2d 1058 (<HOLDING>). Then in district court, summary judgment was
holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act holding that the debtors knowing act of failing to obtain workers compensation insurance so that the employer owed an employee a debt after the employee suffered a workplace injury was not the sort of willful and malicious injury required for nondischargeability under  523a6 because it cannot not be said that the employer intended for the employee to suffer a fall or that there was an unbroken chain of events leading from the employers intentional act to the employees physical injury