Jane Doe v. Victoria Camacho, 329 A.3d 156

Jane Doe sued Victoria Camacho (and others) in June 2022 (Doe I), alleging sexual harassment and assault by corrections officers while Doe was incarcerated between 2014-2020.
Service on Camacho, an individual defendant, was not completed within the required 60 days, largely due to the State's delay in deciding whether to represent her and unsuccessful attempts to serve her at her mother’s address.
The court ultimately found Camacho had not been served because she did not actually reside at her mother’s address and dismissed Doe’s claims against her in Doe I.
In July 2023, Doe refiled claims against Camacho alone (Doe II), after the statute of limitations had expired.
Doe argued the Vermont savings statute (§ 558) or, alternatively, equitable tolling should allow her refiled claims to proceed.
The trial court dismissed Doe II as time-barred. Doe appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Savings Statute (§ 558)	Service failure was due to unavoidable accident or process server’s neglect, so new action timely.	§ 558 does not cover untimely service and plaintiff’s own neglect caused failure.	Savings statute does not apply; no unavoidable accident or server neglect.
Excusable Neglect	Delay in seeking service extension was excusable due to State delay/representations.	Delay was in plaintiff’s control; State’s actions made clear attorney's duties.	No excusable neglect; plaintiff did not act diligently or seek timely extensions.
Equitable Tolling	Tolling justified by State representations or potential defendant evasion.	No active misconduct by defendant; argument not preserved below.	Not preserved for appeal; no showing of defendant’s misconduct preventing timely filing.
Effect of Procedural Rulings	Court orders gave more time or created ambiguity about deadlines.	Court orders required timely service; plaintiff misconstrued procedural statuses.	Courts’ orders did not extend deadlines; plaintiff’s misunderstanding was not justified.

Fortier v. Byrnes, 165 Vt. 189 (statute-of-limitations dismissed claims shown on face of complaint)
Ferncenia v. Guiduli, 175 Vt. 541 (strict compliance required for service rules when limitations is an issue)
Tracy v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 76 Vt. 313 (unavoidable accident requires reasonable diligence by plaintiff/attorney)
Clark v. Baker, 201 Vt. 610 (filing action relates back only if service and extensions comply with rules)
Weisburgh v. McClure Newspapers, Inc., 136 Vt. 594 (savings statute available only if plaintiff satisfies its terms)
Spear v. Curtis, 40 Vt. 59 (savings statute liberally construed but not to override plain statutory language)