Sierocinski v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
103 F.2d 843 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint is sufficient if it contains a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, thereby giving the defendant fair notice; the plaintiff is not required to plead specific evidence or the precise theory of negligence.
Facts:
- E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (defendant) manufactured a dynamite cap.
- Du Pont supplied the cap to the plaintiff's employer.
- The plaintiff, an employee, used the dynamite cap as part of his work.
- The plaintiff performed a necessary and anticipated process called 'crimping' on the cap.
- While the plaintiff was crimping the cap, it prematurely exploded.
- The plaintiff was injured as a result of the explosion.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a complaint against E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. in U.S. District Court.
- The defendant's motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) was granted by the court.
- The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging negligence in the manufacture and distribution of a dynamite cap.
- The defendant then moved to strike the amended complaint and dismiss the action for failing to set forth a specific act of negligence.
- The district court granted the defendant's motion to strike and dismissed the plaintiff's action.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint alleging that a defendant negligently manufactured and distributed a dynamite cap, causing it to explode upon its intended use and injure the plaintiff, state a sufficient claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) without specifying the exact nature of the manufacturing defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Biddle, Circuit Judge
Yes, the complaint states a sufficient claim for relief. A plaintiff sets forth a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) by making a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' The plaintiff's specific averment of negligent manufacture and distribution, which caused the cap to explode when crimped, is sufficient to put the defendant on notice. The rules do not require the plaintiff to plead evidence or technical forms of pleading; they require that pleadings be simple, concise, direct, and construed to do substantial justice. If the defendant requires more information to prepare its defense, it can obtain it through discovery tools such as interrogatories under Rule 33, not by demanding a more specific complaint.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational example of the liberal 'notice pleading' standard established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which replaced older, more rigid 'fact' or 'code' pleading regimes. The court's decision emphasizes that the purpose of a complaint is simply to provide the defendant with fair notice of the plaintiff's claim, not to lay out all the evidence. It firmly establishes the principle that details of a case are to be fleshed out during the discovery process, not litigated at the pleading stage. This ruling promoted easier access to courts by preventing cases from being dismissed on technicalities before the plaintiff had a chance to gather evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Sierocinski v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.