Citizen of Kazan sends Ikea invoice for unsafe furniture
She thinks she did an injury that she has been treating for several years caused by the largest furniture producer
Kazan pensioner Taisiya Andreyeva asks Ikea international corporation to pay a compensation equal to 1 million rubles. On 20 October 2013, she went shopping to MEGA Kazan and tore her leg on a metal rack set between sections of Ikea. The wound started to acutely infect in a week. The injured was diagnosed as trophic ulcer several months later. The wound has not healed by 2016.
'We were not given first aid in the shop'
The hearing of the claim sent by 69-year-old pensioner started in the Court of the Soviet District of Kazan without her participation. Her daughter and representative Regina Maslova explained the court: on 31 October, her mother was hospitalised again – now with a compression fracture of a lumbar vertebra. In the daughter's opinion, the old injury could cause the new one: 'She can't stay firm because of the pains in the injured leg. This time she stood up and fell down. Now she is in hospital.'
From the complainant's point of view, uncovered rack corbels between Bathroom and Cookware caused the first injury. 'My mother turned near these racks. And a sharp edge cut her leg. She had a wound 8 cm in length and 3-4 cm in depth. Even a piece of meat was tore off,' Maslova remembers. She added that the salient edges at Ikea Kazan were closed with special bars next day after the incident.
The daughter of the injured, who is a director of one of the shops, says that anybody can be in her place. However, the acts of the company's staff with a worldwide known name disappoint her: 'There was much blood. We were not given first aid. Their doctor was running for 10 minutes looking for scissors to cut the bandage. As a result, he did not bandage her leg. I had wet wipes. I covered my mum's leg with them until the ambulance came.'
Ikea doesn't see any connection between the cut and ulcer
The family estimated the property damage, including the money spent on treatment and loss of her salary, at 400,000 rubles. The non-pecuniary loss was equal to 600,000 rubles.
At first the claim was sent to Ikea MOS PLC. But in court, representative of the company Oksana Kotlyarova asked to admit another division of the corporation Ikea HOUSE PLC a corresponding respondent. Kotlyarova admitted the legal actions of the citizen of Kazan 'partially proved'. She did not deny the incident in the shop but assured the court that the injured was given first aid: 'Right after the incident, Mega's doctor on duty and manager of the shop came, placed a tight dressing and called an ambulance. On the other day, an employee of Customer Service called the complainant to know how she was'.
Then Oksana Kotlyarova informed: 'The respondent is ready to compensate the cost of the treatment and non-pecuniary loss caused by the incident. But she doesn't admit the loss of the complainant because of a chronic disease. She thinks it is not proved that it was caused by the cut.' In her reply to the claim, the company expressed its discontent that the woman was injured in 2013 but started to send her claims only in 2015.
Ikea ready to call a truce for 50,000 rubles
Judge Liliya Khusnullina noted that an expertise was necessary, but it was expensive. This is why she offered the parties to try to come to an agreement. The representative of Ikea made the first version of the truce public: a maximum of 50,000 rubles for non-pecuniary loss and total compensation for property damage linked with the treatment of the cut based on receipts. 'We did not save all the receipts,' Regina Maslova admitted. 'Nobody thought the injury would lead to this because we tried to reach out IKEA. But nobody wished to meet us. They spoke only on the phone!'
The hearing ended. The judge gave the parties several days to think the possible truce over. After the process in the corridor, Kotlyarova demonstrated Maslova an envelope with a letter of Ikea that was sent to her mother in the first quarter of 2016, according to postage stamps. The letter was sent back because the addressee was absent.