[ad_1]
The Laos that united a uncle to one nephew were considered worthy of indemnity of R $ 250 thousand for pain and suffering after death breaking off gives dam B1 of the Crrego do Feijo mine, operated by Vale, in Brumadinho. The information is from the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (MG). The decision of Judge Osmar Rodrigues Brando, who tried the case in the 5th Labor Court of Betim, where an uncle managed to show strong love and coexistence with his nephew who worked in mine and died in the disaster that left 270 victims and devastated part of the Paraopeba River Basin.
The victim provided services to mining company Through the company Preserves Penha Ltda., which was ordered to respond jointly for the amount of R $ 12,500.00.
In unions moved by his uncle, it was alleged that he and his nephew maintained strong affective ties, who were very present in the life of each one. When he was a child, the victim lived in the same house as his uncle and after a few years would have moved to a nearby residence. They were always together, going to each other’s house. They had a loving relationship as if they were going to leave, they were party companions, according to the photos presented.
Still, according to his uncle, his nephew’s death had a great impact on his life, and he is currently depressed accompanied by a feeling of guilt. For his uncle, if his nephew had changed jobs, he would not have been the victim of a tragedy.
“The family is devastated, very emotionally shocked, and the documentary evidence gathered in this act shows that all the family it was very close. fact that the disaster destroyed the harmony of this family, since the nephew was the joy of the family, he was always at the grandparents’ house, he was the first to arrive at birthday parties, baptisms, weddings, encouraging everyone with his games , as the attached photos prove, so the magnitude of the damage caused was indescribable, ”the petition states.
In defense, the Valley SA, as the provider of the services and Preserves Penha Ltda., As the victim’s employer, did not deny the facts. They basically argued that there was no harm to compensate the uncle, due to the degree of relationship.
