When a plaintiff in any civil action has failed to obtain judgment by reason of failure to name the right person as defendant therein, the plaintiff may bring a new action and the statute of limitations shall not be a bar thereto if service of process in the new action is made within one year after the termination of the original action. If service of process in the original action has been made upon an agent of the defendant named in the new action, or if the defendant in the new action is a corporation and service in the original action has been made upon an officer or agent of the corporation, notice of any claim for damage shall be sufficient if given in the original action, pursuant to statutory provisions, to any officer or agent of the defendant in the new action.

(1949 Rev., S. 8333; P.A. 82-160, S. 252.)

History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section.

Where defendant in second suit is a street railway company upon whom no process was served in original action, statute does not cure lack of statutory notice. 105 C. 96. New action may be brought within 1 year regardless of originally applicable statute of limitations. Id., 94; 109 C. 460. New action may set up different allegations if cause of action remains the same. 108 C. 444. Appeal from architectural examining board not a “civil action” within meaning of section. 153 C. 124. Cited. 169 C. 646; 183 C. 504; 191 C. 150; 214 C. 464; 225 C. 13; 234 C. 169. Where only one right person is named as defendant, failure to name all defendants from whom recovery is possible does not constitute failure to name the right person as defendant. 276 C. 1. Action was untimely and savings provision does not apply in municipal liability action under Sec. 52-557n because plaintiff could have recovered from defendants in original action, based on the factual allegations and causes of action in the original complaint. 315 C. 821.

Cited. 18 CA 515; 22 CA 625; 42 CA 345. Where plaintiff's suit against a state officer was dismissed due to immunity under Sec. 4-165, the 2-year statute of limitations in Sec. 52-584 applies in subsequent suit against the state and the exception under this section for failure to name the right person as defendant does not apply. 62 CA 545. Plaintiff's action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as result of defendant's alleged negligence could not be saved from being time barred by statute because plaintiff named the proper party in his previous action which was not dismissed for failure to name the proper party but was stayed pending resolution in arbitration; statute applies only in circumstances in which plaintiff's original action failed by reason of naming the wrong defendant and such naming was the product of a reasonable and honest mistake of fact as to identity of the truly responsible individual. 67 CA 668. Plaintiff could not avail herself of statute's savings clause because dismissal of her first action was for dormancy, not for failure to name the right person as defendant. 72 CA 302. Plaintiff not eligible for relief under section since she withdrew her action in favor of a settlement and did not obtain judgment in the original action. 83 CA 843. Plaintiff's initial failure to name all presumptively factually correct defendants, whom plaintiff eventually did name, did not constitute failure to name the right person as defendant under section. 123 CA 583; judgment reversed on alternate grounds, see 306 C. 107. No exception to the principles of res judicata for an action brought under section. 165 CA 857.

Effect of section on statute of limitations where proper party was sued in corporate rather than individual name. 9 CS 307. The original action was terminated at the date judgments of nonsuit were rendered and not at the date of determination of later motions to set aside. 31 CS 302. Cited. 33 CS 176; 40 CS 266.