Nikola Jajic v. Jennifer Sainato
2023-CA-0956
Ky. Ct. App.Mar 14, 2025Background
- Jennifer Sainato sued Nikola Jajic for civil battery (sexual assault) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) after an incident in a Louisville Marriott hotel room in 2018.
- Sainato alleged she was drugged and assaulted, while Jajic claimed all interactions were consensual.
- Sainato also sued Marriott (and related entities) for negligence, dram shop liability (improperly serving alcohol), and IIED, asserting the hotel failed to protect her and served alcohol to intoxicated persons.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Marriott on negligence and IIED but initially denied summary judgment on dram shop liability, allowing that claim (and Sainato’s claims against Jajic) to proceed to trial.
- A jury found for Sainato on civil battery, awarded significant damages, apportioned 45% fault to Sainato and 55% to Jajic, and found no dram shop liability against Marriott.
- Both parties appealed; Sainato challenged the dismissal of her negligence claim against Marriott and the apportionment of fault to her, while Jajic challenged the sufficiency of evidence, punitive damages, and whether the verdict was influenced by passion or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for battery (consent) | Sainato was impaired, unable to consent to sexual contact. | Jajic claimed all sexual contact was consensual. | Evidence was sufficient for jury to find lack of consent; affirmed. |
| Punitive damages on battery claim | Jajic acted intentionally; punitive damages proper. | No gross negligence; inconsistent with IIED verdict. | Punitive damages proper on intentional battery; affirmed. |
| Apportionment of punitive damages | Should not be apportioned; based on intentional misconduct. | Punitive damages should be apportioned per fault. | Punitive damages cannot be apportioned; affirmed. |
| New trial (jury passion/prejudice, improper comments) | N/A (Jajic argued for new trial) | Jury influenced by external factors & counsel statements. | No preserved error or proof of prejudice; no new trial. |
| Negligence by Marriott (foreseeability, duty) | Marriott should have foreseen and prevented third-party battery. | No evidence staff knew or should have known of any risk. | No foreseeability; duty not owed; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Spoliation of evidence (video footage) | Jury should be instructed on missing evidence (hotel deleted video). | Footage deleted in regular course; non-material missing evidence. | No abuse of discretion; denial of spoliation instruction affirmed. |
| Comparative fault/apportionment to victim | Victim of battery cannot be apportioned fault for intentional act. | Victim's conduct partially contributed to harm. | Apportionment improper; new trial required on damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitale v. Henchey, 24 S.W.3d 651 (Ky. 2000) (defines civil battery; absence of consent required)
- Ten Broeck Dupont, Inc. v. Brooks, 283 S.W.3d 705 (Ky. 2009) (absence of consent can be based on incapacity)
- Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984) (established comparative fault in Kentucky)
- Morgan v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 388 (Ky. 2014) (jury resolves factual disputes and credibility)
- Nichols v. Hazelip, 374 S.W.3d 333 (Ky. App. 2012) (apportionment in intentional torts applies only to parties at fault)