Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
20/06/2014
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
transparent image
No evidence of malice or negligence on part of company that causes harm to the environment and to third parties by depositing toxic waste in inappropriate site is necessary for it to respond in damages. According to the theory of integral risk, just that there is a relationship between the damage and the risk created by the agent, not admitting even the exclusive liability - fortuitous event, force majeure, third party or fact blame the victim.
This was the understanding of the Third Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to rule on the appeal of a 12 year old boy who stepped on land contaminated by toxic waste. He suffered third-degree burns and required medical care for seven days, still undergoing minor surgical interventions.
The land belonged to the company LDC-SEV Bioenergy S / A, in the municipality of Sertaozinho (SP). The site used for dumping of toxic waste in the open, had no supervisory able to prevent the entry of unauthorized persons. The boy filed a suit for damages against the company.
The trial court dismissed the claim. Considered that the episode was not the result of willful misconduct or negligence of the company, but fortuitous event or force majeure.
boards
The Court of São Paulo (Id) reformed the judgment to order the company to compensate the young man for moral damages, compensation for arbitraging 200 minimum wages, indexation from the citation.
For São Paulo court, "the mere existence of signposts and about does not make lawful the dumping of toxic material in the environment", which contaminates the soil and groundwater "so as to endanger the whole community around it" .
On appeal to the court, the company argued that there was no connection between his conduct and the harm caused to the victim. Stated that there was no tort because adopted all necessary to warn of danger on their property and remove unauthorized persons care.
According to the minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino (pictured), rapporteur of the appeal, "civil liability for environmental damage, either by injury to the environment itself (public environmental damage), or by offending individual rights (private environmental damage) is objective, based on the theory of integral risk, given the provisions of Article 14, paragraph 10, of Law 6.938/81. "
full risk
According to the minister, "the strict liability grounded in the theory of risk allocation is assigned by law to certain persons of ressarcirem damage caused by activities performed on your behalf and under your control, not that there should be any question about the subjective element of conduct of the agent or its employees, just a causal link between the damage suffered by the victim and the risk created by the agent. "
Sanseverino said that for the doctrine, liability for environmental damage is generated by a risky activity developed by the polluter, which emerged harm to the environment or to third parties, "abstracting any analysis on the subjectivity of the agent's conduct , not admitting even some of the traditional exclusive liability, such as fortuitous event, force majeure, the fact that the third party or the victim's own fault. "
Source: STJ
Our news are taken in full from our partner sites. For this reason, we can not change their content even in cases of typos.
transparent image
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.