Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
2 min of reading 
0 comments 
Decision of the 2nd Civil Court of Caçapava Rejected Claims for Moral and Material Damages Concluding That the Plaintiff Did Not Prove Personal Losses Nor Link Between Works, Alleged Expenses, and Health Problems
The Justice of Caçapava Denied Compensation for Moral and Material Damages to a Resident Who Attributed Losses to Construction Work of a Shopping Mall Neighbouring Her Home, a Decision of the 2nd Civil Court of Caçapava, Still Subject to Appeal.
Interdiction of the Property and Measures Taken
According to the case, the woman lived in a property that did not belong to her when the shopping mall construction began on the neighbouring land.
After the work started, leaks and cracks appeared in the residence, a situation that prompted a technical inspection and resulted in the property’s interdiction.
-
Two global aviation giants are convicted in Paris and will have to pay R$ 1.3 million each for the crash of the Rio-Paris flight that killed 228 people in 2009.
-
Deputies against the government join forces to maintain a 6×1 schedule, workweeks of up to 52 hours, a 10-year transition, halving the FGTS, and special rules for certain sectors.
-
New law prohibits motorcycle passengers, imposes a fine equivalent to R$ 2,100, and was created to try to curb robberies and attacks committed by criminals using motorcycles in Peru, Brazil’s neighboring country.
-
Gun permits for veterinarians advance in the Chamber: see what changes and what the requirements are
In light of the situation, the business covered hotel accommodation and rental payments for 12 months, in addition to reaching an agreement with the owners.
The agreement provided for necessary renovations in the property while the resident stayed in an alternative location, with initial expenses covered by the shopping mall.
Legal Request and Allegations
At the end of the period, the resident did not return to the house, citing personal issues, and continued living in the rented property with expenses paid by the business.
Later, she filed a legal action requesting compensation for damaged furniture and reimbursement for new accommodation expenses.
The action also sought reimbursement for transportation and food expenses, in addition to compensation for psychological damages allegedly resulting from the construction work.
Justification of the Court’s Ruling
In the ruling, Judge Simone Cristina de Oliveira stated that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property or the allegedly damaged furniture.
According to the judge, it is not possible to recognize material loss when the claimed goods belong to third parties, making any property compensation unfeasible.
The judge also rejected the request for reimbursement for food and transportation, arguing that such expenses are part of ordinary routine.
For the decision, these expenses would be incurred regardless of the property’s interdiction, having no direct relation to the shopping mall’s construction.
Regarding moral damages, the judge concluded that there was no proof of a link between the alleged health problems and the facts presented.
The ruling recorded the absence of evidence that dental and orthopedic treatments had any relation to the construction, keeping the possibility of appeal open.
With information from Itatiaia.
-
-
2 people reacted to this.