Brazilian courts order multiple indemnities in civil cases
The Brazilian judiciary has issued a series of rulings ordering compensation across diverse civil matters. Supreme Court Minister Gilmar Mendes approved a review of a multi‑hundred‑million‑real indemnity originally set by a 1991 judgment after finding a grossly erroneous expert appraisal that inflated the value of undelivered pine trees. In São Paulo, the State Court determined that consumers denied urgent medical care by health‑plan operators receive an average of R$ 9,580 in moral damages, with the highest awards reaching R$ 80 000. A court in Suzano ordered a bank to refund unauthorized loans and pay R$ 10 000 in moral damages to an elderly INSS beneficiary defrauded by fake O Boticário sales agents. The Regional Labor Court of Minas Gerais affirmed a R$ 200 000 award—split equally between moral and aesthetic damages and a lifetime pension—to a road worker severely injured by a roller‑compactor. The São Paulo Court of Justice upheld a R$ 50 000 settlement after a four‑year‑old girl was left unattended in a school bus for three hours. Additionally, a São Paulo criminal court sentenced an ophthalmologist to 40 years in prison for causing loss of vision in 21 patients during a cataract‑surgery campaign due to unsanitary practices. These decisions illustrate a broader judicial trend of enforcing liability and providing monetary redress for procedural errors, negligence, and contractual breaches.
Entities: Brazil · Gilmar Mendes · Ministério Público Federal · SEIPN (Superintendência das Empresas Incorporadas ao Patrimônio Nacional) · Supreme Federal Court (STF) · São Paulo Court of Justice · Tribunal Regional do Trabalho de Minas Gerais · Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo · Union of Brazil
Claims
What the coverage asserts, and how well corroborated each claim is across sources.
- [○ 1 SOURCE] A later expert assessment showed market prices per tree between Cr$ 40,000 and Cr$ 75,000. (second expert report)
- [○ 1 SOURCE] Minister Gilmar Mendes allowed the revision of an indemnity despite res judicata. (Gilmar Mendes)
- [○ 1 SOURCE] The 1951 contract involved purchase of 300,000 pine trees, with 200,000 not delivered. (contract details)
- [○ 1 SOURCE] The original indemnity was based on a 1985 expert report valuing each tree at Cr$ 680,000. (original expert report)
- [○ 1 SOURCE] The Union was ordered in 1991 to pay compensation exceeding R$ 300 million. (1991 judgment)
- [○ 1 SOURCE] The STF judged the expert error to be gross and technical, justifying correction of the quantum. (Gilmar Mendes)