Wrongful Death Damages reference snapshot for Brazil

Rule or statute summary

In Brazil, “wrongful death” damages are typically analyzed under civil liability (tort-like rules in the Civil Code) and the general evidence/procedure rules that govern how a court confirms: (1) wrongdoing, (2) causation, and (3) the scope of damages.

In practical terms, claims are usually grouped into two damages buckets:

1. Moral damages (dano moral)
   These aim to compensate for the non-economic harm suffered by the family/claimants arising from the deceased’s death, and are usually tied to the existence of a death caused by another’s unlawful conduct.

2. Material damages (dano material)
   These are intended to compensate financial loss, most commonly where the deceased contributed to the household or supported dependents. The material-damages concept often resembles “lost support,” projected over a compensable period, subject to proof.

What tends to drive the outcome (and your calculator inputs)

A key practical planning point is that Brazilian death-damages outcomes often depend on your ability to prove:

• Causation (the death was caused by the alleged wrongful conduct), and
• Loss / dependency for material damages (that the deceased’s income/support actually benefited specific claimants).

Where evidence on dependency or financial loss is thin, material damages may be reduced. Moral damages can still be pursued based on family relationship and the circumstances of the case, but the amount may be constrained by the evidentiary record.

How DocketMath fits in

DocketMath’s wrongful-death-damages calculator helps you turn those legal categories (moral vs. material) into a structured set of inputs and a jurisdiction-aware estimate.

Friendly disclaimer: This tool is for reference and planning, not legal advice. A real case assessment may require reviewing your specific facts, evidence, and the applicable procedural posture.

Citations

Below are common legal anchors used in Brazil for wrongful death damages analysis. These are starting points for understanding the framework; the specific application can vary by facts and the arguments raised in the case.

• Civil Code (Código Civil), Law No. 10.406/2002

  • Article 186 (unlawful act / civil wrong): liability when conduct violates law or infringes rights and causes damage.
  • Article 187 (abuse of rights): supports liability where rights are exercised abusively.
  • Article 927 (duty to repair damages): requires compensation for unlawful acts causing harm.
  • Articles 948–949 (death-related damages)

    • Art. 948: addresses compensation due to a homicide/cause of death, including material loss to survivors and moral damages connected to death-related harm.
    • Art. 949: addresses support and related consequences for survivors, depending on the deceased’s circumstances.

• Civil Procedure Code (Código de Processo Civil), Law No. 13.105/2015

  • Evidence and burden of proof provisions are often cited in practice to support how courts evaluate:

    • causation,
    • the existence and extent of dependency/loss, and
    • the proper scope of damages.
  • Note: The exact CPC articles used in a given wrongful death case depend on how the dispute is framed and what is contested (causation vs. quantification vs. offsets, etc.).

How citations map to calculator inputs (conceptually)

Use the calculator

Open DocketMath’s wrongful-death-damages tool:
**/tools/wrongful-death-damages

Use the input checklist below to align your assumptions with Brazil-focused material vs. moral categories, and to see how outputs change as you update evidence.

Step-by-step input checklist (Brazil)

• Prefer net figures (after typical deductions you can reasonably defend with documents).

  • Example: if dependents relied on 60% of the deceased’s net income, enter 0.60 (adjust based on evidence).
  • Use the compensable projection period you want the calculator to model for material loss.
  • Select the option that best fits your fact pattern in the tool (often support-based loss categories).
  • For moral damages, the tool typically scales based on the number of claimants (within its Brazil rule set).
  • Choose the closest setting that matches the record (for example: relationship proximity and severity of circumstances).
  • If the tool supports it, include pensions/benefits that may reduce the net “support loss.”
  • If the tool includes a fault/contributory mechanism, set it based on the case record.

What to expect from the output

DocketMath typically returns (at least) the following reference numbers:

• Estimated material damages (support/loss-driven)
• Estimated moral damages (family impact-driven)
• A combined total estimate

It may also provide sensitivity via scenario adjustments. For Brazil snapshots, the biggest swings often come from:

• Net income assumptions,
• Dependency fraction,
• Years of loss,
• Offsets/benefits, and
• Number of moral claimants + selected moral intensity.

Example scenario (illustrative)

If you enter:

• Net income: R$ 6,000/month
• Dependency share: 0.70
• Years of loss: 10
• Claimants: 2
• Moral intensity: high
• Offsets: R$ 0

…you should expect material damages to dominate the total because it’s driven by income/time math. If you later add offsets/benefits (e.g., a pension that partially replaces lost support), the material portion should decrease, while moral may remain relatively steadier.

Sources and references

Start with the primary authority for Brazil and confirm the effective date before relying on any output. If the rule has been amended, update the inputs and rerun the calculation.

• Primary authority reference

Related reading

• Wrongful Death Damages Estimator Guide for Alabama
• Wrongful Death Damages Estimator Guide for Arizona
• Wrongful Death Damages Estimator Guide for Colorado