Worsley v Tambrands Ltd [2000] PIQR P95

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal