Going to the supermarket is a necessity for all adults and a common and peaceful moment for many.
However, sometimes the professionals responsible for security in these stores may act in a way that demonstrates that they are not prepared for the role.
see more
In less than an hour, a man is robbed twice, run over and left...
Archaeologists discover 2,000-year-old sandals in Roman settlement in…
Recently, an alarming case occurred in a supermarket in Navegantes, a city on the coast of Santa Catarina. The incident happened when a customer was approached by security guards as he left the establishment and subjected to a personal search.
To justify this personal search, the security guards present a reason that is difficult to accept: the customer was walking too fast and, according to them, he seemed “strangely rushed”.
However, it was proven that this should not be a reason for such an approach and the supermarket will have to pay dearly, literally, for this disastrous attitude by the security guards. Find out more below!
As expected, this incident that occurred in Navegantes ended up at the Santa Catarina Court of Justice (TJSC).
When analyzing the case, the Justice body reported that the customer had gone to the supermarket to buy bread. However, upon realizing he was late for work, he left his purchases on a counter and hurriedly left.
As previously mentioned, this attitude raised suspicions on the part of the security guards, who decided to carry out a personal search without apparent justification.
In view of the reality of the facts, a decision by the 1st Civil Court of the District of Navegantes determined that a man was subjected to a vexatious situation, making him eligible to receive a indemnity worth R$5 thousand.
The supermarket, unhappy with the decision, appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence and claiming that its employees acted in accordance with the institution's standard procedures.
However, during the testimony, an employee of the supermarket admitted that interventions are carried out only after analyzing images from security cameras and that approaches only occur when there is evidence of theft.
The judge reporting the case emphasized that, since the approach on the part of the establishment was not in dispute, it was up to the supplier to prove that such an approach occurred in the regular exercise of the right, as alleged by the reverse part.
However, it was evident that the supermarket presented only one piece of evidence, insufficient to demonstrate the correctness of its conduct at the time. Since the witness heard in court was not even present at the time of the events.
Until the closing of this article, the decision of the Santa Catarina Court was still in favor of the unduly searched client, who will be able to receive compensation.
At Trezeme Digital, we understand the importance of effective communication. We know that every word matters, which is why we strive to deliver content that is relevant, engaging and personalized to meet your needs.
