One confusion involving two residents of a condominium in Contagem, in the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte, ended up in court, and one of the parties involved will have to pay R$10,000 in compensation to the other.
The case was processed at the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice ofMinas Gerais, which ordered a resident to pay compensation for moral damages to a neighbor, after the verbal aggression perpetrated in a WhatsApp group.
see more
Killer beauty: THIS beautiful plant kills in just 20 minutes
Every movie THIS actor has been in has been nominated for an Oscar;…
The compensation, previously set at R$ 20,000 by the 1st Instance, was reduced by half, although the public offenses uttered by the woman were considered undeniable by the witnesses. The victim claims that, in addition to having suffered from the messages, she also suffered threats.
The victim reports that, in addition to the derogatory messages in the WhatsApp group, the aggressor even caused material damage and uttered offenses and threats in person.
The aggressor raged in front of the victim's residence, damaged the gate, threw debris and stones on her land and also tried to defame her 14-year-old son through a telephone call.
In her defense, the woman admitted her attitude, but launched accusations of emotional involvement between the exposed neighbor and her husband, claiming moral damages not evidenced in the process. In addition, he made it clear that he had suffered previous accusations from the victim.
(Illustrative image: disclosure)
The condominium confirmed the public sending of aggressive messages by the defendant, as well as the attitude of throwing objects and waste on the neighbor's land.
With the reports of moral damages and materials, including the destruction of the victim's gate, in addition to the acts of throwing stones and garbage, the Justice accepted the request for compensation in R$ 10,000.
According to the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber, through the judge and rapporteur of the case, Marcos Lincoln, the accused “exceeded the right to freedom of expression”.
This is because it exposed an event of private life in a digital environment, in which several people not involved in the case had access.
