Pace Bus can be sued for sexual assault committed by employee. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

For ages it has been nearly impossible to hold an employer responsible when one of it’s employees sexually assaults a third party while that employee is supposed to be working. The legal principle is that employers are not liable for the acts of their employees if those acts are outside the scope of employment. And of course, sexual assault is ALWAYS outside the scope of employment.

But a recent opinion from the Illinois First Appellate District does allow for employer liability – albeit in a very limited factual situation. In Dennis v. Pace Suburban Bus the plaintiff, Janice Dennis, sued Pace Bus after being sexually assaulted by a Pace bus driver. When Dennis entered the bus she was intoxicated. During the bus ride she lost consciousness on a couple of occasions. The driver, a Jeffrey Moore, never contacted the police or medical personnel. Instead, he took plaintiff to his home. Plaintiff alleged that while at Moore’s home she was sexually assaulted. Dennis woke the next morning in Moore’s bed without any clothing. Pace moved to dismiss certain portions of the complaint, arguing that Moore was not acting in the scope of his employment when he assaulted Dennis. The trial court agreed and dismissed those portions of the complaint – and plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Court however, said not so fast. The Court agreed that generally employers are not liable for criminal acts of employees. But, there are exceptions. In Illinois, if an employee of a common carrier[i.e. Metra; CTA, Pace] intentionally injures a passenger, the common carrier is liable – even if the employee is acting outside the scope of his employment. Therefore, Pace could be liable for intentional torts Moore inflicted upon Dennis. Pace tried another dodge – that since Dennis was at Moore’s home, she technically was not a passenger. The Court shot that down as well, noting that the assault began on the bus. Bottom line – Dennis can seek to hold Pace responsible for the sexual assault committed by its employee.

So at least when it comes to common carriers, they may be on the hook when their employees act improperly with passengers.

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.