to fault as to the cause of the injury.” Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-7(1) (Supp. 2016). “The term ‘arising out of employment’ simply means there is a causal connection between the employment and . the injury. One is injured ‘in ,the= course of employment’ when an injury results from activity ‘actuated partly by a duty to serve the employer or reasonably incident to the employment.’ ” Mathis v. Jackson Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 916 So.2d 564, 571 (¶ 23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Singley v. Smith, 844 So.2d 448, 453 (¶20) (Miss. 2003)). Haney argues that the Commission’s decision should be reversed because he was injured within the scope and in the course of his employment. He claims that his tree climbing was mere “horseplay” during a lull in his work duties, not a de 517, 520 (1954) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 13. In Collier v. Texas Construction Co.,
holding that a contractors employees were not within the scope and course of their employment when they deviated from their work to shoot at squirrels holding that a janitorial workers sexual assault of a student deviated from his duties and was clearly outside of the scope of his employment holding unconstitutional a workers compensation statute which granted immunity from suits by coemployees to employees who acted within the scope of their employment holding in a similar situation that statements from unidentified ex ecutives were admissible because evidence established that though their precise identity was unknown they were all westinghouse executives who had authority to make personnel decisions and thus were actfing within the scope of their employment in stating their views on the state of their workforce holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury