英语翻译Sierocinski v.E.I.Du Pont De Nemours & Co.,(1939)2.Facts

英语翻译
Sierocinski v.E.I.Du Pont De Nemours & Co.,(1939)
2.Facts:P.was injured while crimping a dynamite cap.
3.Procedural Posture:P.made a claim for relief under Rule 8.The trial court granted the D.'s motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).The amended complaint stated that the P.was injured by premature explosion of the dynamite cap caused by the negligent acts of the D.which included manufacturing and distributing of the cap "in such a fashion that it was unable to withstand the crimping which D.knew it would be subjected to." The trial court granted the D.'s ensuing motion to strike the amended statement as failing to set forth any specific act of negligence,and dismissed the action.P.appealed to this court.
4.Issue:What are the requirements of a claim?
5.Holding:"A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 8(a)(2).
6.P.'s Argument:The claim sets for a specific averment of negligent manufacture and distribution of the cap in such a fashion as to make it explode when crimped.Such a statement is sufficient to show that the P.is entitled to relief.
7.D.Argument:It is not put on notice by the complaint as to whether it must meet a claim of warranty,of misrepresentation,of the sue of improper ingredients,or of faulty inspection.Thus,it is insufficient to state a grounds for relief.
8.Majority Reasoning:First,a plaintiff need not plead any evidence.Any further information as to the specific nature of the negligence claim would be in the nature of evidence.Second,Form 9 of the appendix to the rules was meant to indicate the simplicity and brevity of the statement of the claim necessary,and it merely avers that the D.negligently drove an automobile against the P..Lastly,if the D.needs further information to conduct its defense,then it can use Rule 33 interrogatories.

Sierocinski 诉 E.I Du Pont DeNemours & Co.,(1939)
　　2．案件事实：原告在卷砸炮（封於纸条中的少量火药,用於玩具枪中产生轻微爆炸声）的时候受伤.
　　3.前期程序：原告依据第八条要求赔偿.法院同意被告方依据第12条第4款提出的要求原告提供更为明确陈述的动议.修改后的起诉指出,被告的不作为行为引起了砸炮的提早爆炸,从而导致原告被炸伤.被告的作为行为表现为,被告在明知砸炮可能承受不住卷曲的压力的情况下,仍然以这种方式制造、销售砸炮.被告再次对该起诉提出动议,指出原告未提出具体的疏忽行为.法院准许,驳回起诉.原告向本院上诉.
　　4.争议点：索赔请求权的必要条件
　　5.法院观点：一份简短的索赔陈述应表明提起者有权获得赔偿第八条第1款第2项
　　6．原告答辩：原告的请求明确表明厂家在制造和销售过程中的疏忽行为导致砸炮在卷曲时产生爆炸.这份陈述足以表明原告有权获得赔偿.
　　7．被告答辩：原告的起诉既不符合保证责任的起诉要求,也不符合虚假表述、材料的不合理使用或是检测瑕疵的起诉要求.因此,这份起诉书没有达到提出索赔的要求.
　　8．主要推理：第一,原告不需要提交证据.对于主张疏忽行为的更多信息将由证据本身决定.第二、附录中的表9用于证明陈述的简洁性,但它只能表明被告驾驶车辆撞到原告时有疏忽大意.第三、如果被告需要进一步的辩护资料,他可以使用第33条的询问
PS：这应该是一个案例的brief 吧,很多细节不清楚,只能大致的翻译一下了.