Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pasqualotto, Adalberto de Souza
Data de Publicação: 2023
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Pensar (Fortaleza. Online)
Texto Completo: https://ojs.unifor.br/rpen/article/view/14569
Resumo: The Superior Court of Justice - STJ - has a long-standing case law denying the right to compensation to smokers and their families when they seek compensation for damage to health caused by tobacco products. For the STJ, the free will of the smoker prevails when deciding to smoke, even if he/she knows the health risks inherent in tobacco consumption. The court also considers that, under the Consumer Protection Code, cigarettes are not defective products, as they do not offer legitimate expectations of safety to the consumer. Apparently, the STJ's orientation contrasts with decisions of the Federal Supreme Court - STF - which give primacy to the protection of goods such as health and the environment when put at risk by economic interests. The present article seeks to emphasize the contrast between the two orientations, especially after the STF decision that considered constitutional the prohibition of tobacco advertising
id UNIFOR-3_f7c06c24ba560fc7b200d0238a8fe41d
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.ojs.unifor.br:article/14569
network_acronym_str UNIFOR-3
network_name_str Pensar (Fortaleza. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of JusticeDireito à saúde e nocividade do tabaco: discrepâncias entre a jurisprudência do STF e do STJindenização para fumantesdireito à saúdeproibição da publicidade de tabacodefesa do consumidorcompensation for smokersright to healthban on tobacco advertisingconsumer protectionThe Superior Court of Justice - STJ - has a long-standing case law denying the right to compensation to smokers and their families when they seek compensation for damage to health caused by tobacco products. For the STJ, the free will of the smoker prevails when deciding to smoke, even if he/she knows the health risks inherent in tobacco consumption. The court also considers that, under the Consumer Protection Code, cigarettes are not defective products, as they do not offer legitimate expectations of safety to the consumer. Apparently, the STJ's orientation contrasts with decisions of the Federal Supreme Court - STF - which give primacy to the protection of goods such as health and the environment when put at risk by economic interests. The present article seeks to emphasize the contrast between the two orientations, especially after the STF decision that considered constitutional the prohibition of tobacco advertisingO Superior Tribunal de Justiça – STJ - tem remansosa jurisprudência negando direito de indenização aos fumantes e às suas famílias quando buscam reparação dos danos à saúde causados pelos produtos derivados do tabaco. Para o STJ, prevalece o livre arbítrio do fumante ao decidir fumar, ainda que conhecendo os riscos à saúde inerentes ao consumo de tabaco. O tribunal também considera que, à luz do Código de Defesa do Consumidor, o cigarro não é um produto defeituoso, por não oferecer legítima expectativa de segurança ao consumidor. Aparentemente, a orientação do STJ contrasta com decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF - que dão primazia à proteção de bens como a saúde e o maio ambiente quando colocados em risco por interesses econômicos. O presente artigo procura enfatizar o contraste entre as duas orientações, especialmente após a decisão do STF que considerou constitucional a proibição da publicidade de tabacoUniversidade de Fortaleza2023-10-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionAvaliado pelos paresapplication/pdfhttps://ojs.unifor.br/rpen/article/view/1456910.5020/2317-2150.2023.14569Journal of Legal Sciences; Vol. 28 No. 4 (2023); 20Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas; Vol. 28 Núm. 4 (2023); 20Pensar - Revista de Ciências Jurídicas; v. 28 n. 4 (2023); 202317-21501519-8464reponame:Pensar (Fortaleza. Online)instname:Universidade de Fortaleza (UNIFOR)instacron:UNIFORporhttps://ojs.unifor.br/rpen/article/view/14569/7141Copyright (c) 2023 Pensar - Revista de Ciências Jurídicas http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPasqualotto, Adalberto de Souza2024-02-27T12:14:43Zoai:ojs.ojs.unifor.br:article/14569Revistahttps://periodicos.unifor.br/rpenhttp://ojs.unifor.br/index.php/rpen/oai||revistapensar@unifor.br2317-21501519-8464opendoar:2024-02-27T12:14:43Pensar (Fortaleza. Online) - Universidade de Fortaleza (UNIFOR)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice
Direito à saúde e nocividade do tabaco: discrepâncias entre a jurisprudência do STF e do STJ
title Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice
spellingShingle Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice
Pasqualotto, Adalberto de Souza
indenização para fumantes
direito à saúde
proibição da publicidade de tabaco
defesa do consumidor
compensation for smokers
right to health
ban on tobacco advertising
consumer protection
title_short Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice
title_full Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice
title_fullStr Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice
title_full_unstemmed Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice
title_sort Right to health and tobacco harmfulness: discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice
author Pasqualotto, Adalberto de Souza
author_facet Pasqualotto, Adalberto de Souza
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pasqualotto, Adalberto de Souza
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv indenização para fumantes
direito à saúde
proibição da publicidade de tabaco
defesa do consumidor
compensation for smokers
right to health
ban on tobacco advertising
consumer protection
topic indenização para fumantes
direito à saúde
proibição da publicidade de tabaco
defesa do consumidor
compensation for smokers
right to health
ban on tobacco advertising
consumer protection
description The Superior Court of Justice - STJ - has a long-standing case law denying the right to compensation to smokers and their families when they seek compensation for damage to health caused by tobacco products. For the STJ, the free will of the smoker prevails when deciding to smoke, even if he/she knows the health risks inherent in tobacco consumption. The court also considers that, under the Consumer Protection Code, cigarettes are not defective products, as they do not offer legitimate expectations of safety to the consumer. Apparently, the STJ's orientation contrasts with decisions of the Federal Supreme Court - STF - which give primacy to the protection of goods such as health and the environment when put at risk by economic interests. The present article seeks to emphasize the contrast between the two orientations, especially after the STF decision that considered constitutional the prohibition of tobacco advertising
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023-10-30
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Avaliado pelos pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://ojs.unifor.br/rpen/article/view/14569
10.5020/2317-2150.2023.14569
url https://ojs.unifor.br/rpen/article/view/14569
identifier_str_mv 10.5020/2317-2150.2023.14569
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://ojs.unifor.br/rpen/article/view/14569/7141
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2023 Pensar - Revista de Ciências Jurídicas
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2023 Pensar - Revista de Ciências Jurídicas
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de Fortaleza
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de Fortaleza
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Legal Sciences; Vol. 28 No. 4 (2023); 20
Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas; Vol. 28 Núm. 4 (2023); 20
Pensar - Revista de Ciências Jurídicas; v. 28 n. 4 (2023); 20
2317-2150
1519-8464
reponame:Pensar (Fortaleza. Online)
instname:Universidade de Fortaleza (UNIFOR)
instacron:UNIFOR
instname_str Universidade de Fortaleza (UNIFOR)
instacron_str UNIFOR
institution UNIFOR
reponame_str Pensar (Fortaleza. Online)
collection Pensar (Fortaleza. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Pensar (Fortaleza. Online) - Universidade de Fortaleza (UNIFOR)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||revistapensar@unifor.br
_version_ 1800217257151823872

Registros relacionados