Company responds for moral damage caused by panic after explosion on train

bistsarker

Even though the occurrence of vandalism in a train carriage is considered externally fortuitous, the absence of action protocols to avoid turmoil, panic and the submission of passengers to more dangerous situations lead to the duty to compensate. In this case, vandalism is not the only cause of moral distress. reproduction Company did not provide immediate assistance due to an incident between two stopping stations Reproduction This was the understanding used by the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice to maintain a decision that obliges the Companhia Paulista de Trens Metropolitanos (CPTM) to compensate a passenger for moral damages due to an electrical explosion that occurred in a carriage during the journey between the train stations.

Guaianases and Ferraz de Vasconcelos, an event that Binance App Users Data generated turmoil and panic. In the special appeal, the company claimed that the blame for the damaging event lies solely with the act of a third party: the action of a vandal caused the explosion on the train. Reporter of the case, Minister Nancy Andrighi understood, however, that the attitude was not the only cause of the moral shock suffered by the passenger in question. After the explosion, the injured passengers did not receive information about the seriousness of the situation and the safety measures to be adopted; In panic, they forced the emergency doors to open and jumped out of the carriage, from a height of more than 1.60 m, in the section between two stations.



There was no immediate help. 'It is, in fact, to be expected, as a minimum standard of quality in the exercise of said risky activity — which therefore characterizes internal fortuitous circumstances — that the appellant has action protocols to avoid turmoil, panic and submission passengers into more dangerous situations", highlighted the rapporteur. The situation differs from other judgments in which the transport company was exempted from liability, such as when a passenger was hit by an object thrown by a third party, from outside the railway train; or when another public transport user was the victim of a stray bullet. In these situations, according to the court, the act of third parties gave exclusive cause to the damage suffered by the victims.