Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
03/05/2013
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
Parking in São Paulo will not have to indemnify client who was assaulted on the premises Photo: Eduardo Naddar / O Globo
The Third Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has decided that you can not blame the company parking for armed robbery suffered on your patio for customer who had belongings stolen. When you go to a bank branch in São Paulo to withdraw R$ 3000, you used to parking, he said, was aimed at bank customers. When he returned, inside the car, was robbed. Were brought your sunglasses, wristwatch and money withdrawn. The thief took the vehicle.
According to the Third Class, in these cases, armed robbery is fairly predictable by the very nature of the activity, and risk inherent in the banking business. Therefore, when the lot is in the service of the bank, the company that also manages accounts, jointly with the bank for damages caused to consumers, as part of the supply chain.
However, the agreement between the institutions was not recognized by the court of second instance, a situation that prevents the analysis of the fact the Supreme Court, because the Court Precedent 7 does not permit the review of evidence in the trial of special appeal. Moreover, the Court of Justice of São Paulo (TJSP) held the position of first instance, stating that it was private parking, independent and detached from the bank branch. Also confirmed the thesis that there was no defect in service provision, since the company's obligation is restricted to guard vehicles.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the second degree, the customer appealed to the court. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and 927, sole paragraph, of the Civil Code, and even jurisprudential divergence. However, the Third Panel noted violations not mentioned. Since it was recognized link between companies, which settles the liability, the parking is only responsible for the safekeeping of the vehicle, it is not reasonable to impose a duty to ensure the safety of the user, especially when it performs operation known risk, consistent the withdrawal of amounts in bank branch.
Read more:
Source: Extra - online
Our news are taken in full from our partner sites. For this reason, we can not change the contents of the same even in cases of typos.
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.