The H onorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for th e * 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

___________ Befo re RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HANSEN, Circuit Judge, an d LIMBAUGH, District Judge.

*

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Gina Poe brought this lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza after she was abducte d and raped by James Sturtz, a Domino’s employee. She alleges, inter alia , negligentThe

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 a ppeal from the grant of a summary judgment, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the partyopposing that motion, here the plainti ff, Ms. Poe. Domino’s hired Mr. Sturtz in early 1994. On March 7th of tha t year, he was distributing pizza coupons door-to-door near the coll ege Ms. Poe attended in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Ms. Poe was waiting at a b us stop, and Mr. Sturtz approached her, told her she had missed the bus, and offere d her a ride. Ms. Poe declined and told him she would wait for t

he next bus. Mr. Sturtz asked Ms. Poe where she was going, and, when she t old him, said he was going that way. Mr. Sturtz told Ms. Poe h e worked for Domino’s and that it would be okay for her to ride with him, a nd 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. St urtz 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 bee n convicted of a felony. Ms. Poe alleges that it was negligent of Domino’s to fail t o c heck 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 whil e he was distributing the coupons. Under Iowa law, however, the case turns o n 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 plaintif

f concedes that Mr. Sturtz was not acting within the scope of hi s employme nt

when he committed the acts complained of. The theory of respondeat superior is therefore not avai lable as a basis of liability in this case. Plaintiff proceeds on a th eory of negligent hiring. The Iowa courts hold that a special relationship must exis t 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 i s a matter for the court to determine. Burton v. Des Moines Metropolita n Transit Authority , 530 N.W.2d 696, 699 (Iowa 1995).
The District Court reviewed three factors to determine whether a specia l relationship existed: whether the p laintiff and the employee were in places where each had a ri ght to be when the wrongful act occurred; whether the plaintiff met th e employee as a direct consequence of the employment; and whether t he employer would receive some benefit, even if only a potential or indirect benefit, from the meeting of the employee and the p laintiff 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 didnot arise out of Mr. Sturtz’s employment, and that Domino’s received no benefit from the meeting. Ms. Poe was not a cu stomer of Domino’s, nor was she an owner or residen t of a house where Mr. Sturtz was going to leave an advertisement fo r Domino’s. Ms. Poe claims there was a special rel ationship because Domino’s considers all members of the public to be potential customers and encourages its drivers to hav e frequent contact with targeted customers such as college stu dents. She also argues that Mr. Sturtz lured her into his car by telling her he worked for Domino’s and by-4-

showing herthe coupons he was distributing. The District Court found thi s 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 dest ination. We believe the District Court correctly held there was no special relationship. Ms. Poe had n o more connection with Domin o’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.