TRT-MG Judges Maintained the Decision of the Ubá Court and Understood That the Accident Did Not Occur During the Performance of the Employee’s Duties
The Labor Court decided that an employee who tripped on a step at the company’s entrance while arriving to start her work shift is not entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. The decision was unanimous among the judges of the Third Panel of the Regional Labor Court of Minas Gerais (TRT-MG), who understood that the company was not at fault for the incident.
The reparation request had been ruled as unfounded in the Labor Court of Ubá. However, the employee appealed, insisting that it was a work-related accident.
She argued that the company had issued the Work Accident Communication (CAT) and that the technical expertise found irregularities in the flooring and a lack of signage in the area, factors that, according to her, would prove the employer’s liability.
-
For the first time in history, millions of Brazilians will receive the 13th salary of 2026 without any Income Tax deductions — and the amount can arrive in full in their accounts.
-
Millions of Brazilians will have to work more in 2026: the score to retire has risen to 93 and 103, the minimum age has increased, and those who planned to retire this year may be in for a surprise.
-
Paternity leave increases from 5 to 20 days with Law 15.371/2026, which also created paternity pay through INSS and guaranteed job stability for fathers for up to 30 days after the end of the leave.
-
The new law No. 15,377, sanctioned by Lula and published in the Official Gazette of the Union on April 6, guarantees 3 days off for workers to undergo medical examinations.
The plaintiff also claimed to have been temporarily incapacitated for work and reiterated the request for compensation for moral and material damages, as well as the recognition of provisional stability.
Nevertheless, the judges maintained the view that there was no responsibility on the part of the company.
Relator’s Analysis and Legal Foundation
The judge Danilo Siqueira de Castro Faria, the reporter of the appeal, emphasized that the case does not impose the obligation to compensate. He explained that the employer, under the employment contract, must ensure adequate safety conditions for the employee’s duties.
Otherwise, they incur in grave fault and must repair any damages, according to Articles 186 and 927 of the Civil Code.
However, the reporter considered that the accident did not occur during the execution of the employee’s activities, but rather before the start of the work shift. “To characterize a work accident or occupational disease, it is essential to demonstrate the occurrence of damage, fault, and a causal link between the injury suffered and the services performed,” stated the judge.
Circumstances of the Accident
According to the decision, the employee herself reported, in the examination, that she missed the transport provided by the company and, to avoid being late, took a taxi to the workplace. Upon exiting the vehicle and entering the entrance, she tripped on a bump and fell, injuring herself. She reported that the flooring lacked signage, that she was wearing flat sandals, and that she was carrying a backpack. She also mentioned that the weather was clear, without rain.
After the fall, the doorman assisted the employee, who was taken to the company’s clinic. There, she waited for the shift change and the arrival of the occupational safety technician, who accompanied her to the hospital.
Expert Report and Safety Regulations
The technical report cited occupational safety standards, but the reporter noted that the rules mentioned do not apply to the case. According to him, the measures provided in item 8.2.1 of Regulatory Standard No. 8 (NR-8) relate to service provision locations and not to all areas of the company. “These provisions do not cover the entrance area, where the accident occurred,” he explained.
Similarly, the judge highlighted that the regulations from the Military Fire Brigade of Minas Gerais (CBMMG) address building safety and fire prevention, not applying directly to workplace safety itself.
Conclusion of the Judgment
For judge Danilo Faria, the employee herself admitted that she was in a hurry because she had missed the corporate transport. This circumstance, he said, reinforces that there was no fault on the part of the company. “No illegal act was found to have been committed by the employer that would justify the requested compensation,” he concluded.
Thus, the Third Panel of TRT-MG upheld the first-instance decision, denying the request for compensation for moral and material damages, as well as the recognition of provisional stability. The decision was unanimous among the judges who participated in the ruling.

Seja o primeiro a reagir!