Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Decision Confirms Compensation of R$ 8 Thousand and Reinforces Duty to Maintain Public Lighting to Prevent Life-Threatening Accidents.
The CEB was held liable for an electric shock suffered by a child in a public court in the Federal District. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Justice of the Federal District, with compensation set at R$ 8 thousand for moral damages.
The case involves a failure in the public lighting network, which left an iron grid electrified. The situation exposed children to risk and resulted in injuries.
The episode also reinforces that utility companies can be held liable for damages when there is a defect in the service, even without a direct contract with the citizen.
-
What many people consider a weed has become a bicycle in the hands of a Chilean. José Tomás transforms coligüe, a native bamboo that grows up to five times faster than pine, into bikes, canes, and cutlery.
-
Reports about the possible arrest of Diogo Defante in the USA during the 2026 World Cup are making waves on social media and raising questions about what really happened.
-
The 71-year-old Korean pastor who built a box in the wall to save abandoned babies and has already taken in more than 2,000 children without asking for the name of any mother.
-
Mother of four faces financial difficulties in São Paulo, swaps jobs outside the home for sweet and savory pies, and turns the kitchen into a source of income to support the family while studying nursing to change her children’s future.
What Happened and Why It Got Attention
The accident occurred in May 2019, in a court where children were playing soccer. A boy tried to help a friend who got stuck in the location’s metal grid.
The grid was electrified due to a failure in the lighting network maintained by the CEB. When touching the structure, the child also suffered the electric shock.
There was numbness in the arms and hands and burns on the fingers. The lawsuit was filed by the mother, seeking R$ 20 thousand for moral damages.
How Justice Determined CEB’s Responsibility
The 3rd Civil Court of Guará recognized the company’s responsibility and set the compensation at R$ 8 thousand. The CEB appealed to try to overturn the conviction.
The company argued that no energy leakage capable of causing shock was found. It also questioned the existence of moral damages and pointed out the lack of causal link.
In the judgment, the logic of strict liability was applied, which requires proof of the fact, the damage, and the connection between them, without the need to prove fault.
Who Has the Right and What the Law Says When Applicable
The decision highlighted Article 37, Paragraph 6 of the Federal Constitution and Article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code. These provisions address the duty to repair damages arising from failures in service delivery.
Article 17 of the CDC was also considered, which extends protection to victims of events caused by service defects, even without a direct contractual relationship.
In practice, this allows recognizing the child as a consumer by equivalence when the damage arises from a failure in service delivery.
What Weighed in the Evidence and in the Causal Link
The evidence demonstrated the occurrence of the accident and the failure in maintaining the lighting network of the location. The decision pointed out the absence of proof by CEB of effective preventive maintenance measures and periodic inspections.
Technical elements capable of dismissing the causal link between the shock and the electrical network under the company’s maintenance were also not presented.
Responsibility could only be dismissed with proof of exclusive fault of the victim, force majeure, or unforeseeable circumstances, which did not occur in the process.
Why the Value of R$ 8 Thousand Was Maintained
The compensation of R$ 8 thousand was considered proportional to the damage. The case involved a child subjected to electric shock, a situation associated with life risk and suffering.
In addition to physical pain, the episode can cause emotional impact, with greater weight due to the inherent vulnerability of childhood.
The decision was unanimous in the judging panel, maintaining the conviction and the set amount.
The upholding of the conviction confirms the duty of care regarding public lighting and the prevention of failures that can energize metal structures in spaces for collective use.
For the population, the message is direct: defects in essential services that pose risks and damages can lead to compensation, with strict liability of the concessionaire when the link with the failure is proven.
Be the first to react!