Iverson v. NPC International, Inc.
801 N.W.2d 275
S.D.2011Background
- Iverson asserts four theories against Pizza Hut: vicarious liability under respondeat superior, negligent hiring, duty to control an employee, and negligent supervision after Williams attacked Iverson at a Sioux Falls Pizza Hut.
- Pizza Hut employed Williams as a non-managerial utility worker with no required background check at hire; Williams disclosed a Colorado felony parole status but manager did not further investigate.
- The incident occurred on Sept. 8, 2007, in the Pizza Hut back area; Williams restrained Iverson and forcibly took cash, with Iverson sustaining a three-part jaw fracture and incurring substantial medical bills.
- Iverson sued Williams and Pizza Hut; Williams defaulted in the circuit court; summary judgment was entered for Pizza Hut on all four theories; Iverson appeals.
- Court reviews summary judgment de novo and finds no genuine issue of material fact; focus on whether a duty exists and, if so, whether it was breached or caused the injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pizza Hut has vicarious liability for Williams’s assault. | Iverson argues agency relation aided Williams’s tort. | Respondeat superior requires act within scope of employment; Williams acted for own interests. | No vicarious liability; Williams acted for his own purposes; agency did not enable the tort. |
| Whether Pizza Hut breached negligent hiring duties. | Background check would have revealed Williams’s carjacking felonies; insufficient inquiry violated duty. | Duty to investigate limited to high public contact; Williams’s original role entailed incidental public contact. | No duty to perform background check given Williams’s incidental public contact at hire. |
| Whether Pizza Hut had a duty to control Williams to prevent harm to Iverson. | Pizza Hut could have controlled Williams via discipline/termination; foreseeability of harm exists due to parole status. | Foreseeability not shown; Williams was a model employee and not prone to violence; insufficient foreseeability. | No duty to control; not reasonably foreseeable under totality of circumstances. |
| Whether Pizza Hut had a duty of negligent supervision. | Pizza Hut’s supervision was inadequate to prevent harm. | Negligent supervision requires foreseeability and failure to supervise; not satisfied here. | No negligent supervision duty; foreseeability not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirlin v. Halverson, 758 N.W.2d 436 (2008 S.D. 107) (foreseeability and duty to control analyzed via totality of circumstances; incidental public contact limits duties)
- McGuire v. Curry, 766 N.W.2d 501 (2009 S.D. 40) (employer duty to background-check under certain public-contact circumstances; foreseeability of harm standard)
- State Auto Ins. Co. v. B.N.C., 702 N.W.2d 379 (2005 S.D. 89) (duty to exercise ordinary care; foreseeability framework)
- Poelstra v. Basin Elec. Power Coop., 545 N.W.2d 823 (1996 S.D. 36) (duty and foreseeability for negligent supervision/ control analyzed)
- Small v. McKennan Hosp., 403 N.W.2d 410 (1987) (foreseeability and duty principles; critique of prior similar-acts rule)