Deflated breast implant leads to lawsuit against Coquitlam Ikea store

A lawsuit against Ikea has been dismissed after the company was found not liable for a B.C. woman’s deflated breast implants.

According to B.C. Supreme Court documents, Eva Dudas, 52, was in the Coquitlam Ikea store on Jun. 23, 2014 when she slipped a fell in a washroom. Dudas was having lunch at the store when she visited the washroom. When Dudas entered the washroom and while she was in a stall, a store staff member entered the washroom and performed cleaning services, which included spot cleaning with a damp mop.

When Dudas emerged from the stall she took a couple of steps towards the sink and suddenly slipped on what she believed was water on the floor. Her chest hit the sink with the full weight of her body and fell to the floor. According to court documents, Dudas was winded, dizzy and felt immediate pain in her sternum and chest area after the fall.

The woman was taken to the hospital and when she disrobed to put on a hospital gown she discovered that her left breast implant had fully deflated.

“The plaintiff testified that she was emotionally devastated by having one deflated breast and immediately made arrangements to have it repaired. On June 30, 2014, she consulted with Dr. Rai, an aesthetic plastic and reconstructive surgeon at the False Creek Surgery Center,” said Justice G.C. Weatherill in the judgement.

“Dr. Rai was qualified as an expert to opine on breast implant surgery. He determined that the plaintiff’s left breast implant had ruptured, and opined that the plaintiff’s fall likely contributed to the rupture. He also determined that her right breast implant, although intact, had severe capsular contracture, likely as a result of it having been in place for approximately 20 years. He opined that the fatigue period for such implants was 10 to 12 years, and recommended that both breast implants be replaced.”

Dudas underwent surgery in Aug. 2014 and received new breast implants; she fully recovered after approximately six weeks.

“I find that, while the plaintiff was in a washroom stall, Ms. Kaur, an employee of SBS, entered the washroom and, among other cleaning services, mopped the area of the floor in front of the stall occupied by the plaintiff. The Caution sign was left by the entrance door. I accept the plaintiff’s evidence that she was oblivious to the fact that the washroom was being cleaned while she was in the stall.”

“I accept that the plaintiff slipped on the floor surface after she exited the washroom stall and was walking towards the sink. However, to find that she slipped on water or a damp floor would be speculation. There is no evidence that moisture was observed by anyone on the floor at any time.”

The judge stated that while the fall was unfortunate, there was no evidence to show a breach of duty on the part of Ikea

“Relatively large and obvious Caution signs were provided and on display in the washrooms to alert users that the floor may be slippery due to water from sinks being used. The potential for some dampness on the floor ought reasonably to have been expected by anyone using it. The mere presence of some water on the floor does not constitute an objectively unreasonable risk of harm.”

As a result, the judge dismissed the claim.