Two families went to court to ask Vale for compensation for the deaths of their family members in the Brumadinho dam collapse. They are asking the company to pay R$10 million for each of the four dead, buried in the rubble of an inn in the region. Two families of four people who died in the Brumadinho tragedy are asking, in court, for compensation of R$40 million from Vale, due to the accident, R$10 million per victim. The family belongs to business administrator Fernanda Damian de Almeida, who was five months pregnant, and was staying with her husband, architect Luis Taliberti Ribeiro da Silva, at Pousada Nova Estância, which was taken over by the flood of waste. His sister, Camila Taliberti, was also at the inn. According to the action, if Vale does not "suffer in the civil sphere", with the payment of fines and compensation proportional to its profits, "new dam failures will occur.The petition is signed by lawyers Roberto Delmanto Jr and Paulo Thomas Korte.
According to them, families, hoping to see their children alive again, went door to door and in hospitals in all the cities in the region. "Their suffering was evident in countless interviews, before the whole of Brazil, which followed the suffering in the face of the death of practically an entire family", says the action. Lawyers argue that, in addition to losing their children, sister and grandson, the family also had to deal with the condition of the bodies, which were Exit Mobile Number List only found after 22 days.Here, the main question arises in relation to current interventions: how can we intend to preserve this clification, which privileges one sector to the detriment of the entire society, especially industry and commerce, burdening and compromising the production chain?” “These amendments, if accepted, will provide the indispensable security to the economic agent by solidifying the non-interventionist policy” highlights Del Chiaro.
The table has already received a contrary opinion from the Secretariat for the Promotion of Productivity and Competition Advocacy (Seprac), of the Ministry of Economy, which considered it unconstitutional. The opinion was issued at the request of the Federal Supreme Court.The problem is how the Judiciary will examine these clauses. Even if there is such a provision in law, nothing prevents the judge from considering that there was excess, abuse or deviation in the wording of such rules, which will not impede his intervention. Article 480-B, in turn, provides that, “in inter-company relations, the symmetry of the contracting parties must be umed and the allocation of risks defined by them must be observed”. The parity character of business relationships is the rule and has only been ruled out in exceptional cases (although debatable) by jurisprudence in situations that reclify the legal relationship for Consumer Law.
