Opinion ID: 1614851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did Combined Owe Prospective Employees a Duty to Properly Train and Supervise its Employees?

Text: Schoff also sought to recover under a negligence theory, alleging that Combined breached a duty to properly train and supervise Hageman, its district manager. A duty to conform to a standard of conduct to protect others is a necessary element in every negligence action. See Van Essen v. McCormick Enterprises Co., 599 N.W.2d 716, 718 (Iowa 1999). Courts look to legislative enactments, prior judicial decisions, and general legal principles as a source for the existence of a duty. Id. Because the existence of a duty is a question of law for the courts to resolve, it may appropriately be addressed by way of summary adjudication. See Fry, 554 N.W.2d at 265. Schoff relies on the Restatement (Second) of Agency section 213 (1958) as authority for his claim. That section, dealing with a principal's responsibility for the negligent actions of his agents, states in pertinent part: A person conducting an activity through servants or other agents is subject to liability for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless: (a) in giving improper or ambiguous orders or in failing to make proper regulations; or .... (c) in the supervision of the activity.... Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213, at 458 (1958). In Godar v. Edwards, 588 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa 1999), we relied on this Restatement provision in recognizing a claim by an injured third party for negligent hiring. [4] 588 N.W.2d at 709. We held that an employer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring individuals, who, because of their employment, may pose a threat of injury to members of the public. Id. This duty was extended to negligent retention and negligent supervision of employees. Id. These theories of liability only apply, however, if all the requirements of an action of tort for negligence exists. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 cmt. a, at 458. Thus, the torts of negligent hiring, supervision, or training must include as an element an underlying tort or wrongful act committed by the employee. Haverly v. Kaytec, Inc., 738 A.2d 86, 91 (Vt.1999). Although our appellate decisions have not addressed this component of a claim for negligent supervision, in every Iowa case where section 213 has been applied, the employee who was negligently hired or supervised wrongfully inflicted injury on the plaintiff. E.g., Godar, 588 N.W.2d at 703 (employee sexually abused student); D.R.R. v. English Enterprises, CATV, 356 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Iowa App. 1984) (employee raped tenant of apartment complex). The same is true for the two cases upon which the plaintiff relies for support. See Pruitt v. Pavelin, 141 Ariz. 195, 685 P.2d 1347, 1349 (Ariz.Ct.App.1984) (employee defrauded client); Welsh Mfg. v. Pinkerton's, 474 A.2d 436, 437 (R.I.1984) (employee stole from client). We conclude, therefore, that an employer cannot be held liable for negligent supervision or training where the conduct that proper supervision and training would have avoided is not actionable against the employee. Here, Hageman cannot be liable for misrepresentations negligently made to Schoff because he is not in the business of supplying information. See Freeman, 516 N.W.2d at 838; Haupt, 514 N.W.2d at 910; Meier, 454 N.W.2d at 581. Nor, as we have concluded above, can there be any liability based on the theory of promissory estoppel. It follows then that Combined cannot be liable for its failure to prevent the alleged misrepresentations or promises through appropriate supervision and training of Hageman. We hold that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff's negligent training and supervision claim. AFFIRMED.