Restaurant will have to compensate customer who suffered an accident in the drive-thru

The 1st Appeal Panel of the Special Courts of the DF upheld the sentence that condemned a restaurant to compensate a consumer who suffered an accident at the service window drive Thru. The panel noted that the consumer was not alerted about the security system in the window.

Narrates the author who went to the drive Thru of the defendant, where he made the request. The consumer says that, after waiting 20 minutes, she went to the service space, which was a glass window, to request information about the order.

She reports that, when she waved and gestured to be seen by one of the employees, she was surprised by the glass falling onto her arm. The author says that, as a result, she suffered a bruise and that her arm needed to be immobilized. She also claims that the accident caused injury, pain and deformity in her wrist, and asks to be compensated.

Decision of the 1st Special Civil and Criminal Court of Gama (DF) concluded that “there was a consumer accident for which the defendant was entirely responsible, as it was up to her to guarantee the physical integrity of all her consumers and employees”. The company was ordered to compensate the author for material and moral damages.

The restaurant appealed, arguing that it cannot be held responsible for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. She informs that the consumer was asked to wait for the order inside the vehicle, but that she chose to position herself inside the establishment through a window. She says that the window where the accident occurred is not suitable for serving customers who are outside the vehicle.

When analyzing the appeal, the judges noted that the evidence in the process shows that “the failure to provide services (…) is undeniable”. The panel also highlighted that the author should have been alerted about the security system installed in the window where the accident occurred.

“The consumer tried to start a conversation in front of the window of the appellant company for 39 seconds and, at no point, was she warned of the risk of remaining there or even in some way moving towards the outside of the establishment. It is concluded that she should have been immediately alerted to the aforementioned risk”, stated the magistrates.

The panel recalled that the company itself, in the appeal, reported that the window where the author “leaned to try to call an employee contains a security system, that is, an internal security lock, thus, the weight and the fact of entering the cabin in the external/internal direction closes to prevent invasion”.

In this case, says the Class, the defendant was at fault. Furthermore, the injury suffered by the author occurred due to the closing of the window on her right arm and wrist.

“The causal link is equally evident (…) On the other hand, the severity of the injuries (…), also proven by the images (…), goes beyond the boundaries of mere annoyance or mere unpleasantness of everyday life, resulting in obvious moral damage” , he pointed out.

Therefore, the defendant was ordered to pay the author the amount of R$4,000 as moral damages. The company will also have to reimburse the amount of R$68.98. The decision was unanimous. With information from the TJ-DF communications office.

Process 0701641-95.2023.8.07.0004