In Isidro v. State, 62 Conn. App. 545, 771 A.2d 257 (2001), the Court explained that "our Supreme Court has recognized that 52-593 applies only in circumstances in which the plaintiff's original action failed by reason of naming, in fact, the wrong defendant; that is, in cases in which the naming of the wrong defendant was the product of a reasonable and honest mistake of fact as to the identity of the truly responsible individual." Id. The Court concluded that 52-593 did not save the plaintiff's action because her original action was not dismissed due to her failure to name the proper defendant as a matter of fact. Instead, the action was dismissed because the defendant was immune from liability. The Court noted that the plaintiff did not make a mistake as to the identity of the owner of the vehicle at the time of the original action and that she had been free to pursue the owner in that action, but that for some reason, whether tactical choice or technical deficiency, she did not do so.