Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Connecticut: “Payloader” Is Not Motor Vehicle for Purposes of Special Rule Allowing Tort Action Against Fellow Employee

April 17, 2015 (1 min read)







Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31–293a creates several exceptions to the otherwise applicable rule that a workers’ compensation claim for benefits is the exclusive remedy that an employee may pursue against a fellow employee. One such exception allows the injured employee to proceed in tort against the fellow employee if the former’s injuries are based on the fellow employee’s negligence “in the operation of a motor vehicle.” A Connecticut appellate court held that a “payloader”—a type of front-end loader—was the sort of “special mobile equipment” not included within the meaning of “motor vehicle.” Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the court ruled that the exception to exclusivity did not apply and a wrongful death action filed against the fellow employee was, therefore, barred by the exclusive remedy rule.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to

See Abendroth v. Moffo, 2015 Conn. App. LEXIS 139 (to be officially released, Apr. 21, 2015) [2015 Conn. App. LEXIS 139 (to be officially released, Apr. 21, 2015)]

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.03 [111.03]

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.









For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site