Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
40 comments 
Ruling Confirms Service Failure and Ensures Payment for Emotional Distress to Pet Owner After Animal Disappears During Heavy Rain.
The 2nd Chamber of Public Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice upheld the conviction of a highway concessionaire due to the disappearance of a domestic animal. The amount of compensation for emotional distress was adjusted to R$ 6 thousand.
The case involves a dog of the shih tzu breed that disappeared during heavy rains and was later found on an access ramp of the highway administered by the company. How the animal was handled after being collected became the central point of the case.
The ruling reinforces that, when assuming this type of service, the concessionaire must act with clarity and responsibility. When this fails, the emotional damage to the owner may create an obligation to compensate.
-
Woman arrested after receiving $1.2 million due to banking error and not returning the amount.
-
Beneath Mexico City lies an entire buried Aztec capital, and it all began when workers discovered a 3.25-meter stone disk featuring a dismembered goddess, revealing temples, skulls, and palaces beneath 22 million people.
-
How to build a 35,000-liter cistern with 60 by 50 cm panels and rainwater for drinking and cooking without relying on water trucks or the city hall.
-
A woman went out for a regular walk and ended up finding a treasure buried for over 900 years, with more than 2,000 medieval silver coins compared by archaeologists to a lottery prize and considered one of the most significant finds in recent years in the country.
What Happened and Why It Drew Attention
The dog disappeared during the heavy rain and was later found in an access area of the highway administered by the defendant. An employee collected the animal and informed that he would take it to the animal control center.
With this information, the owner searched for the animal at nearby units but was unable to locate it. This situation resulted in a judicial inquiry to ascertain responsibility for the disappearance after the collection.
The attention-grabbing point was the discrepancy between what was reported at the time of collection and what happened afterwards. The ruling addressed this conduct as a significant failure in the provided service.
How Justice Evaluated Responsibility
The judgment dismissed the notion of the owner’s exclusive fault. The discussion did not focus on the animal’s escape, but rather on what happened after the concessionaire had direct contact with it.
The evaluation considered that the company did not fulfill the correct handling that was communicated. This type of failure qualifies as a failure in service provision, when the service rendered does not deliver what it should.
It was also noted that the escape during the storm does not eliminate the duty to act correctly after collection. Responsibility was maintained due to the relationship between the agent’s action and the subsequent difficulty of reuniting.
Why Incorrect Handling Matters in This Case
When an animal is collected on a highway, the handling must be done in a verifiable manner and consistent with what was said. If the guidance provided to the owner does not allow for locating the animal, the service fails to fulfill its purpose.
The ruling emphasized that the problem was the incorrect handling and the omission in ensuring that the handling occurred as communicated. This breach of trust increases the suffering of those searching for the animal and finding no answers.
In practice, the case shows that responsibility can arise even when the disappearance begins outside the highway. The focus shifts to what occurred after the animal was collected by someone connected to the service.
What Changes Practically for Pet Owners
Situations of disappearance on roads managed by concessionaires require attention to the first contact. Information about the delivery location and handling must be clear, as it guides the entire search.
When the owner visits units and does not find the animal, the emotional impact tends to increase. The set amount of R$ 6 thousand for emotional distress indicates that the Justice system can recognize this type of suffering when there is a failure in service.
The case also reinforces the importance of recording the information received at the time of collection. Clarity about who collected the animal and where it was supposed to go becomes essential in any disputes.
Ruling Maintains Responsibility of the Concessionaire
The compensation was upheld, with the value readjusted to R$ 6 thousand. The decision was made by unanimous vote in the judging panel.
Participating in the judgment were the rapporteur Cynthia Thomé, as well as judges Claudio Augusto Pedrassi and Luciana Bresciani. The outcome preserves the conviction and consolidates the understanding of the obligation to provide the service correctly.
The case serves as a warning for companies operating highway administration. Actions taken after collecting an animal can determine responsibility for damages caused to the owner.
The decision from TJ SP maintains the conviction and sets the compensation at R$ 6 thousand, reinforcing the importance of careful service on highways. The practical consequence is direct: failures in the handling of a collected animal may result in emotional distress.
For owners, the message is clear: the information received at the time of collection must allow for quick location of the animal. When this does not happen, the loss may be recognized judicially.
Click here to read the ruling
Inadmissível essa atitude da justiça, tinham q obrigar a concessionária a relatar aonde a cadelinha foi parar e esse valor pago a tutora é ridículo
Sim.o dinheiro não pagará a tristeza,apesar de considerar a falta de responsabilidade da tutora ao não cuidar com atenção pra não fugir..animais são irracionais e quando os tutores terão essa conciencia
Meu, que pessoas sem compreensão alguma. O cão estava na rua, quantos cão tem na rua? Outra, a pessoa fez seu dever sim, levou até um abrigo, ou até se fosse adotado o cão. Gente, é um **** na minha rua tem uns 8 cães, alguém liga? Não! Por serem cão sem raça alguma, mas é uma vida sim, precisa de amor e cuidado. Justiça Brasileira é uma vergonha!!! Não é atoa que a pessoa que mais fez pelo Brasil colocaram dentro da prisão, não por ser **** ou algo assim, simplesmente por ser ameaça para a esquerda! Vergonha de ser Brasileiro!
Sem anistia
Tinha que colocar **** no meio
Até que fim a justiça funcionou, vira lata ninguém recolher, ninguém adota, um **** de raça que custa ate mais de 6 mil, todos querem, pra nós tutores esses bichinho são filhos, se fosse para roubar o Pet, deixasse lá que ele voltaria pra casa ou alguém humano pegaria e postava nos sites de pets e com certeza encontraria o tutor, mas roubar é crime sim.
A pessoa ver um **** correndo risco de morte, retira e ainda é condenada a pagar indenização. A tutora que não cuidou do **** direito e ele fugiu, nada …? Pelo jeito tem que deixar o **** a própria sorte, aí se deixa, não socorreu o ser indefeso…..essa justiça no brasil realmente é muito justa. Se vc socorre está errado, se não socorreu tbem. Quem tem seus animais que cuide e depois não venha reclamar se eles fogem
A concessionária fez o certo em recolher o **** entretanto só resolveu a situação que lhe convinha sem pensar na segurança do **** , encaminhou ao centro de zoonose e pronto feito sua parte. Ainda não se pensa que é uma vida. Se fosse uma criança, teria que se entregar a força policial seguir os trâmites legais… Caso contrário também se ficaria procurando por uma vida tem que haver clareza dos encaminhamentos não se fazer de qualquer jeito. Quando você socorrer uma pessoa por mais boa vontade, não se pode fazer de qualquer jeito. É disso que tem que se pensar. E outra coisa , infelizmente tem tutores irresponsáveis mas também deve se pensar que acontece situações. Acontece com pessoas ! Que dura um irracional que escapa e corre além da velocidade humana
Tem que ter responsabilidade é uma vida… 6mil é muito pouco… Tem casos que fizeram eutanasia no animalzinho.
Eu acredito que levaram no centro de zoonose e fizeram eutanásia no pobrezinho do **** agiram errado, e estão mentindo porque quem recolheu o **** sabe muito bem aonde ele está o que foi conversado exija desta pessoa que recolheu o **** ele ou ela sabe faça falar, nem que seja afogando na água. M
Se recolheu tem que encaminhar dignamente. É uma vida. Cadê o cão ? Deram fim nele ?
Discordo , é se fosse seu filho??????
Não salvaram e sim roubaram