Question

求高手帮我翻译一下下面的法律英语案例，不要翻译软件什么的翻译的

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.

Answer 1

　　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芹樱物议，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颂纯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：嫌液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。

Answer 2

Sierocinski v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., (1939)
西尔罗辛斯基（P） 对簿 杜邦公司(D), (1939)
2. Facts: P. was injured while crimping a dynamite cap.
2. 实情: P 在曲卷炸药雷管的时候发生意外受伤。

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.
3. 诉讼程序的立场：P根仔陵据第8条例要求救济赔偿。D 根据第12 (e)条例提出要求更明确声明的动议，初审庭批准所求。修改后的控诉陈述P是因为雷管提早爆炸才导致受伤，原因是由于D在制造和分销方面的过失行为造成的，因为D“明确知道雷管将纳物会受到卷曲而没有使雷管达到这种承受力。”初审庭批准D随后要求撤销这份修改声明的动议，理由是声明没有洞戚液提出任何具体的行为过失；审判庭驳回P的诉讼请求。P向本院提出上诉。

4. Issue: What are the requirements of a claim?
4. 要点：什么是索赔的先决条件？

5. Holding: "A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 8(a)(2).
5. 依据：第8(a)(2)条例“一份简短和清楚的声明表达诉求者有权获得救济。”

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.
6. P点论据：索赔通过申辩当雷管被卷曲就会爆炸是因为生产和分销的过失造成的。这个声明已足够证明P有权获得救济。

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 use of improper ingredients, or of faulty inspection. Thus, it is insufficient to state a grounds for relief.
7. D的论据：控诉没有注明索赔是基于产品的担保、误导、不当成分或检测瑕疵。所以，要求救济的理由不充足。

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.
8. 大多数的推论：首先，原告是不需要陈述证据的。任何针对疏忽索赔的具体性质的补充信息将属于证据性质。其次，条例附录的9号表格的目的是为了表明所需要的索赔声明应该是简单和简洁的；它仅仅作为事实提出D过失地驾车撞到P。最后，如果D需要进一步信息来进行辩护，他可以采用第33条例的书面质询。

【英语牛人团】

Answer 3

这个表示有点长 一般人 不会去翻的。。。我橡悔也是学法的 但是表示有些词不会。。。帮不到你了但是如芦陪果你不急的话 我可以试着帮你慢慢翻陪如蠢