1) Look at Sierocinski's complaint carefully in the light of the particularity requirements of Rule 8(a). Try to figure out why each sentence was included. Does he say more than he needs to?

2) Try to figure out what the elements of a cause of action for negligence are on the basis of the Sierocinski's complaint.

3) Look at Form 11. Notice that all the complaint says is that the defendant "negligently drove a motor vehicle against the plaintiff." Is it always enough simply to allege that the defendant  acted "negligently" in order to satisfy Rule 8(a)? Can you think of examples where more detailed allegations of why the defendant acted negligently - the way his action was negligent - would be needed in order to satisfy the particularity requirements in 8(a)?

4) Is Biddle right that the problem with the defendant's argument is that he wants evidence and that evidence is something that is offered (under the Federal Rules) only after the pleading period? Is there another way of interpreting the defendant's argument?

5) Does the fact that the Sierocinski's case subsequently was determined to be without any evidence in its favor (by the Court of Appeals) mean that Judge Biddle decided the Siercocinski case wrongly?

6) Why is it dangerous to plead more than you have to? Why do plaintiffs do it anyway?

7) Think through the arguments in favor and against greater specificity in a complaint.

8) What is the difference between failure to satisfy the particularity standards in the federal rules (in Rs. 8(a) and 9(b)) and failure to state a claim (in 12(b)(6))? Can you think of a complaint that states a claim but fails rule 8(a)? Can you think of a complaint that satisfied rule 8(a) but could be dismissed under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim? Consider the Kirksey case in this regard.