## Facts

- José Roberto Lissoni’s wife (the mother of his children) died in an elevator accident in a condominium building known as Paula Regina Building (Condomínio Edifício Paula Regina).
- Lissoni and his children sued the condominium seeking damages arising from the death.
- The plaintiffs sought both pecuniary (economic) damages and moral (non-economic) damages.
- The lower court initially denied recovery of both pecuniary and moral damages.
- After reconsideration, the lower court permitted recovery of moral damages for Lissoni and his children.
- The condominium filed an extraordinary appeal (Recurso Extraordinário) to the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF), arguing that the state-court ruling violated the condominium’s constitutional rights by permitting recovery characterized as concurrent pecuniary and moral damages.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Federal Constitution’s guarantees concerning indemnification for harm (including Article 5, items V and X), a court may award moral damages for the death of a spouse/parent in addition to (or alongside the possibility of) pecuniary damages without violating the defendant’s constitutional rights.
2. Whether the challenged state-court judgment recognizing moral damages in this wrongful-death context presented a constitutional violation warranting relief on extraordinary appeal.

## Decision

- The STF denied the condominium’s extraordinary appeal and left the state-court judgment intact.
- The STF held that recognizing moral damages for the survivors’ non-economic harm is compatible with the Federal Constitution’s provisions on indemnification for moral and material harm.
- The moral-damages award to Lissoni and his children therefore remained effective.

## Legal Principles

- The Federal Constitution (Art. 5, items V and X) recognizes a right to indemnification for material and moral harm, supporting recovery for non-economic injury such as the suffering caused by the wrongful death of a close family member.
- Moral damages and pecuniary damages compensate different kinds of harm; allowing moral damages does not, by itself, amount to constitutionally improper double recovery.
- On extraordinary appeal, the STF’s task is to address constitutional questions presented by the challenged judgment rather than to retry factual findings or reweigh evidence made in the state-court proceedings.

## Conclusion

In Paula Regina Building v. José Roberto Lissoni et al., RE-192593 (1999), the STF rejected the condominium’s constitutional challenge to a state-court judgment that awarded moral damages to a widower and his children after a fatal elevator accident in the condominium’s building, thereby keeping the moral-damages recovery in force.


Paula Regina Building v. José Roberto Lissoni et al., Extraordinary Appeal 192593-1-9 (São Paulo) RE-192593 (1999)