## Facts

- Ms. Worsley developed toxic shock syndrome (TSS) after using tampons manufactured by Tambrands Ltd.
- TSS was a known risk associated with tampon use; Tambrands Ltd was aware of this risk.
- The packaging included a general warning about TSS but did not specify symptoms or urgency in seeking medical attention.
- The court scrutinized the adequacy of the warnings provided and considered scientific evidence linking tampon use to TSS.
- Consumers relied on Tambrands Ltd to provide accurate information about product risks.

## Issues

1. Whether Tambrands Ltd fulfilled its legal obligation to warn users adequately about the risk of toxic shock syndrome associated with tampon use.
2. Whether the harm suffered by Ms. Worsley was a foreseeable consequence of product use, thus imposing a duty on the manufacturer.
3. Whether the standard of care required comprehensive, detailed, and updated scientific warnings.
4. Whether the warnings met the expectations of the average consumer for clarity, prominence, and comprehensibility.

## Decision

- The court held that Tambrands Ltd failed to provide sufficiently detailed warnings about the risk of TSS.
- The warnings were found inadequate, lacking specific details necessary for consumers to recognize the risk and act appropriately.
- The court determined the harm was foreseeable and the manufacturer had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate it through adequate warnings.
- Tambrands Ltd was found to have breached its duty of care to consumers.

## Legal Principles

- Manufacturers owe a duty to provide clear, sufficient warnings about potential risks associated with their products.
- The adequacy of a product warning depends on clarity, prominence, and comprehensibility to the average consumer.
- Liability arises where harm is foreseeable, and reasonable steps to warn have not been taken.
- Manufacturers must base warnings on credible scientific evidence and update those warnings as new information emerges.
- The expectations of the target consumer group are central to determining the sufficiency of product warnings.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Worsley v Tambrands Ltd [2000] PIQR P95 confirmed that manufacturers must give clear, precise, and scientifically supported warnings about known product risks. Failure to meet this duty exposes manufacturers to liability for resulting harm and reinforces robust consumer protection standards in product liability law.
