from his employment. ¶ 12. The Commission’s decision appropriately recognized that in some cases “horseplay” among coworkers may amount to such a minor deviation from job duties that any injury resulting therefrom will be deemed within the scope and course of employment. See Joe N. Miles & Sons v. Myatt, 215 Miss. 589, 595, 61 So.2d 390, 392 (1952) (finding a compensable claim where a coworker “bear-hugged” the claimant in fun, causing him to fall and injure his back). However, when horseplay rises to the level of a complete and total deviation from the employee’s duties, Mississippi courts have held that resulting injuries are not compensable under the workers’ compensation laws. See, e.g., Earnest v. Interstate Life & Accident Ins., 238 Miss. 648, 650, 119 So.2d 782, 782 (1960) (<HOLDING>); Persons v. Stokes, 222 Miss. 479, 488, 76
holding intentional assault by coworker to be outside the course and scope of employment holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred holding as a matter of law that an offduty government agent was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was driving home intoxicated after completing his tour of duty because on no basis would the court conclude that drinking and driving after work hours fell within the scope of the dea agents employment   holding that an insurance salesman was not within the scope and course of his employment when shooting at birds on a sales call 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