The Municipality of Braga requested the Administrative Court to “use the evidence produced” in the criminal trial, held in 2019, at the Judicial Court, in order to avoid repeating the testimonies of the same witnesses.
As O MINHO reported, the families of the three young people from the University of Minho who died in April 2014, buried under a structure that collapsed in Gualtar, are asking the Braga Administrative Court for 450 thousand euros in compensation from the local municipality and the company JM-Gestão de Condomínios, Lda. Each family claims 150 thousand in damages for death and non-material damages.
The trial, which has already been postponed twice, is scheduled for this Thursday, but its start may be postponed again, given that the judge in charge of the case gave ten days to the plaintiffs’ lawyers to give their opinion.
In the request, the lawyer representing the Chamber, Nuno Albuquerque, states that “the facts on which the authors of the action base the request were already the subject of the criminal proceedings and in which criminal responsibility for the death of the three students was established”.
He emphasizes that, during the discussion and trial hearing, in addition to the statements made by the four defendants – all of whom were acquitted – seven other witnesses were heard.
And he emphasizes: “It follows from the law that testimonies and expert opinions produced in a process with a contradictory hearing on the part of the party can be invoked in another process against the same party”.
Chamber rejects request
In the action, the Chamber rejects compensation and says it had no responsibility for the mail receptacle falling.
The accident dates back to April 23, 2014 when, as part of a routine action, four students from the University of Minho climbed a structure – a concrete mailbox outside a building – which ended up collapsing, killing three other students. who were at the base.
In 2019, the four students who accompanied the three victims at the time were acquitted in the criminal case. They were accused of negligent homicide.
Now, in the action, signed by lawyer José Carlos Rendeiro, the families argue that both the Chamber and the firm had been alerted to the fact that the structure – which had a cement visor that stood out – showed serious signs of poor condition and a marked risk/danger of falling. A state that would have been communicated to the CTT superior, by the local postman.
They say that the owner had responsibility for the conservation and surveillance of the structure, which had been there since 1996, and, as it was in the public domain, the City Council had equal responsibility in the event that the buildings posed a danger to people’s safety.
“The defendants were aware of the state of ruin and the danger to passersby and did nothing. They did not seal off the surrounding area”, they maintain, concluding that the death of the three young people was due to omissive behavior and gross negligence, which, if avoided, would not have caused the fateful accident”.
In the defense, lawyer Nuno Albuquerque says that “the responsibility for repairs and maintenance of the structure, in order to leave it in good condition, lay with the owners and occupants of the Olympus UM Building – built by J. Gomes, Lda –, in the person of JM de Condomínios, in charge of the Condominium Administration since 1996. The Municipality does not impose any duty of surveillance/repair”.
