D.I.G. Contracting Fordham University Has Hired D.I.G.

D.I.G. Contracting Fordham University has hired D.I.G. Contracting LLC for their services to dig a foundation for a new dorm room project. The company rushes to begin work however they do not call the "call before you dig" hotline to ensure that the excavation will not interfere with any of the existing infrastructure that is under ground. However, do to this error a gas line breaks and throws the operator of the excavation equipment on top of Professor Horton.

The case mentions that Professor Horton tries to "catch" the employee who was operating the heavy equipment. I believe this is the key word in the context of the entire case. The fact that Professor Horton had the time to make a conscious decision about whether or not to try to help the propelled operator indicates that he "chose" to try to help this individual.

Professor Horton is undoubtedly well aware of his brittle bone disease and despite the knowledge of his condition, still made the choice to attempt to this individual. Although this is a noble feat that has been exercised by Professor Horton, the damages caused to his leg are not directly caused by the D.I.G. Company's negligence.

The broken gas line however is definitely a direct response of D.I.G.'s negligence; unless it was somehow specified in the contractual arrangement with Fordham University that they or some other third party was responsible for the site examination. However, even if this was the case, D.I.G would still be negligent to some extent because they did not ask for the proper clearance from the responsible party.

It is likely that Professor Horton will be able to argue three of the four elements need to claim negligence. Obviously someone had the duty to call the hotline and did not perform this action. For the same reasons Professor Horton could also claim that this duty was breeched. Furthermore, there was obviously harm done to Professor Horton's knee which was at least facilitate from the indirect cause of events that occurred do to the company's negligence.

However, in order to be successful in a negligence case the individual must be able to prove all four elements and not just three. Furthermore, I do not feel that Mr. Horton can claim a "direct cause" for the damages to his knee that he incurred from the company breaking the gas line. Mr. Horton watched the events unfold which consisted of a short string of events related to the incident. For example, the company is most likely negligent for breaking the gas line.

Furthermore, the backhoe operator could most likely claim that he was directly affected by the company's negligence; that is if he was not the one directly responsible for the negligence. However, once he was propelled.