The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

*

Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-2920NI

_____________

Gina Poe, *

*

Appellant, *

* On Appeal from the United

v. * States District Court

* for the Northern District

* of Iowa.

Domino’s Pizza, Inc., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 10, 1998

Filed: March 20, 1998

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HANSEN, Circuit Judge, and

LIMBAUGH, District Judge. *

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Gina Poe brought this lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza after she was abducted

and raped by James Sturtz, a Domino’s employee. She alleges, inter alia, negligent
 The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1

for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

hiring and supervision. The District Court granted Domino’s motion for summary

1

judgment. We affirm.

I.

Because the case comes to us on appeal from the grant of a summary judgment,

we state the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing that motion, here the

plaintiff, Ms. Poe. Domino’s hired Mr. Sturtz in early 1994. On March 7th of that

year, he was distributing pizza coupons door-to-door near the college Ms. Poe attended

in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Ms. Poe was waiting at a bus stop, and Mr. Sturtz approached

her, told her she had missed the bus, and offered her a ride. Ms. Poe declined and told

him she would wait for the next bus. Mr. Sturtz asked Ms. Poe where she was going,

and, when she told him, said he was going that way. Mr. Sturtz told Ms. Poe he

worked for Domino’s and that it would be okay for her to ride with him, and he showed

her the coupons he was passing out. Ms. Poe got into the car, and Mr. Sturtz drove to

a remote area of Cedar Rapids where, at knife-point, he raped Ms. Poe.

Mr. Sturtz had previous convictions for sexual assault and abuse, and when he

applied for a job with Domino’s, he lied on the form, saying he had never been

convicted of a felony. Ms. Poe alleges that it was negligent of Domino’s to fail to

check Mr. Sturtz’s criminal background thoroughly, to ensure that he had a two-year

uninterrupted driving record, and to follow up with the references Mr. Sturtz provided.

She also alleges that Domino’s violated its own policy by not supervising Mr. Sturtz

while he was distributing the coupons. Under Iowa law, however, the case turns on

whether a special relationship existed between Domino’s and Ms. Poe that gave rise

to a legal duty owed by Domino’s to Ms. Poe. We conclude that the District
-3-

Court did not err when it held that Ms. Poe failed to establish the existence of such a

duty.

II.

The plaintiff concedes that Mr. Sturtz was not acting within the scope of his

employment when he committed the acts complained of. The theory of respondeat

superior is therefore not available as a basis of liability in this case. Plaintiff proceeds

on a theory of negligent hiring. The Iowa courts hold that a special relationship must

exist in order for the plaintiff to prevail in a negligent-hiring case. See D.R.R. v.

English Enterprises, CATV, 356 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Iowa App. 1984). Whether a duty

exists is a matter for the court to determine. Burton v. Des Moines Metropolitan

Transit Authority, 530 N.W.2d 696, 699 (Iowa 1995).

The District Court reviewed three factors to determine whether a special

relationship existed: whether the plaintiff and the employee were in places where each

had a right to be when the wrongful act occurred; whether the plaintiff met the

employee as a direct consequence of the employment; and whether the employer would

receive some benefit, even if only a potential or indirect benefit, from the meeting of

the employee and the plaintiff had the wrongful act not occurred. The Court held that

Domino’s did not cause the meeting between Ms. Poe and Mr. Sturtz, that the meeting

did not arise out of Mr. Sturtz’s employment, and that Domino’s received no benefit

from the meeting. Ms. Poe was not a customer of Domino’s, nor was she an owner or

resident of a house where Mr. Sturtz was going to leave an advertisement for

Domino’s.

Ms. Poe claims there was a special relationship because Domino’s considers all

members of the public to be potential customers and encourages its drivers to have

frequent contact with targeted customers such as college students. She also argues that

Mr. Sturtz lured her into his car by telling her he worked for Domino’s and by
-4-

showing her the coupons he was distributing. The District Court found this

unpersuasive, and, under Iowa law, so do we. Ms. Poe was not a customer, and she

was not one to whom Domino’s owed a duty because of its coupon distribution. She

got into Mr. Sturtz’s car for the purpose of getting a ride to her destination. We believe

the District Court correctly held there was no special relationship. Ms. Poe had no

more connection with Domino’s than any other member of the general public that Mr.

Sturtz might have victimized.

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.