The plaintiff underwent breast implant surgery and subsequently suffered a rupture of one of the implants.
She sued the manufacturer for negligence and failure to warn of the risk of rupture.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the manufacturer had a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in the product's use.
While the manufacturer could discharge this duty by warning the prescribing physician under the 'learned intermediary' rule, the warnings provided to the physician in this case were inadequate.
The Court applied a subjective test for causation, finding that the plaintiff would not have consented to the surgery had she been properly warned, and held the manufacturer liable.
