Sierocinski v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
KALODNER, District Judge.
Defendant under Rule 12 (e), Rules of Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, has moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to file a-more definite statement of claim.
Plaintiff instituted a trespass action to recover for injuries which he suffered when a dynamite cap, manufactured and distributed by the defendant, exploded while the plaintiff was crimping it. Plaintiff did not purchase the dynamite cap directly from the defendant: nor, for all that appears in the statement of claim, did the plaintiff’s employer purchase it directly from the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Looney v. Metropolitan RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Fitzpatrick v. PenfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. VolkSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Catani v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Martin v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1959
- Sheing v. Remington Arms Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1954