Argued April 6, 1990.
Mark A. Healy, with whom, on the brief, was Vincent R. Falcone, West Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
Christopher P. McCormack, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before SHEA, CALLAHAN, GLASS, COVELLO and HULL, JJ.
This appeal presents the issue of whether a bucket loader, claimed to have been operated negligently on a highway construction work-site by a fellow employee of the plaintiff's decedent, was a "motor vehicle" and thus falls within an exception to the general bar against actions based on
the negligence of a fellow employee created by General Statutes[215 Conn. 56] § 31-293a.  Section 31-293a provides that when the workers' compensation remedy is available for an injury caused by the negligence or wrong of a fellow employee, that remedy is exclusive and "no action may be brought against such fellow employee unless such wrong was wilful or malicious or the action is based on the fellow employee's negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle as defined in section 14-1." (Emphasis [215 Conn. 57] added.) General Statutes § 14-1(30)  defines "motor vehicle" broadly as meaning "any vehicle propelled or drawn by any nonmuscular power," but excepts various self-propelled vehicles named specifically and also a category of vehicles referred to as "special mobile equipment defined in subsection (i) of section 14-165."
General Statutes § 14-165(i)  expressly defines "special mobile equipment" to mean "a vehicle not designed for the transportation
of persons or property upon a highway and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway, including but not limited to ... bucket loaders," as well as other listed items of similar construction equipment. Thus, it is clear that the bucket [215 Conn. 58] loader being operated by the defendant as the fellow employee of the plaintiff's decedent at the time of the accident was not a "motor vehicle" and that the negligence relied upon did not relate to the operation of a motor vehicle so as to escape the bar of § 31-293a against such actions. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment for the defendant.
The trial court filed a detailed memorandum of decision setting forth the facts and fully responding to the arguments of the plaintiff. Ferreira v. Pisatauro, 41 Conn.Sup. 326, 574 A.2d 1324 (1989). We adopt the trial court's decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law. It would serve no ...