Afastamento da Súmula 7/STJ em recursos envolvendo discussão sobre a prova pericial em ações de reparação de danosanálise de casos concretos

Resumo

The present study deals with the limits of the appreciation of the expert evidence by the Superior Court of Justice, in the actions of reparation of damages, in view of the provisions of its Precedent 7 ('' the claim of a simple review of evidence does not require special appeal ''). Based on the systematic exploitation of appeals judged in the years 2016 to 2019, by the Third and Fourth Panel of the Superior Court, in which the incidence of the mentioned Precedent has been expressly removed, we seek to verify and delimit the performance of the Superior Court of Justice concerning the evaluation of expert evidence in damages actions, distinguishing issues of law and / or that involve the legal valuation of the evidence from the mere reexamination of evidence. The purpose of this essay is to carry out a qualitative analysis of the selected judgements in order to identify the common criteria, to point out the reasons which, in each specific case, may have determined the express removal of Precedent 7/STJ, and verify if the same understanding adopted by the examined Court could be replicated in Other cases, all in collation with the legal provisions and with the doctrinal propositions.

Ficha do documento

Tipo

Dissertação

Ano

2021

Instituição

Fundação Getulio Vargas

Fonte

Repositório da FGV

Idioma

Português

Acesso

Acesso aberto

Identificador

oai:repositorio.fgv.br:10438/30501

Palavras-chave

Precedent 7 / STJRemovalNot applicableDamage repairExpert proofExpertiseProof valuationSúmula 7/STJAfastamentoNão incidênciaReparação de danosProva pericialPeríciaValoração da provaDireitoReparação (Direito)Brasil. Superior Tribunal de Justiça - SúmulasDanos (Direito)