In Comeau v. Maine Coastal Services, 449 A.2d 362 (Me. 1982) the Court explained that ascertaining whether a sufficient work-connection exists between the act causing the injury and the employment frequently eludes summary determination; instead it requires close analysis. Id. at 366. These include, but are not limited to: (1) whether at the time of the injury the employee was promoting an interest of the employer or the activity of the employee directly or indirectly benefitted the employer. (2) Whether the activities of the employee work to the benefit or accommodate the needs of the employer. (3) Whether the activities were within the terms, conditions or customs of the employment, or acquiesced in or permitted by the employer. (4) Whether the activity of the employee serves both a business and personal purpose, or represents an insubstantial deviation from the employment. (5) Whether the hazard or causative condition can be viewed as employer or employee created. (6) Whether the actions of the employee were unreasonably reckless or created excessive risks or perils. (7) Whether the activities of the employee incidental to the employment were prohibited by the employer either expressly or implicitly (8) Whether the injury occurred on the premises of the employer. Id at 367.