Horton v. DIG In Horton v. DIG, the plaintiff and the defendant were both found for certain degree of negligence against them. However, Horton prevailed in this case and the case was settled as Horton receiving 80% of what he originally sued DIG for. The settlement basically means that Horton’s negligence contributed 20% to his own injury and that DIG’s contributory negligence contributed 80% to Horton’s injury. The ruling was based on the rescue doctrine of the law which holds that “if a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue that victim.”(Wiki) In this case, Horton was the rescuer and DIG was the tortfeasor. D.I.G. Contracting, LLC was hired by Fordham University to dig the foundation for a new dorm to be built. However, DIG did not follow the requirements of NYCRR 753-3 which is the regulation that give the local governing body the time to mark any underground gas or electric lines that must be avoided. DIG’s backhoe then hits the gas line which caused the explosion. Horton who has brittle bone disease witnessed the whole event and saved Mr. Employee who was thrown in the air by the explosion from landing on the ground. The issue here is whether the contracting company is liable in negligence for causing injury to the victim who suffers from brittle bone disease. We will examine each and every element of negligence from the plaintiff and the defendant which ultimately helped to reach the decision of the case. From duty of care, DIG’s negligence clearly consists of conduct that creates and unreasonable risk of harm. The company’s failure to follow the requirements of NYCRR 753-3 puts many peoples’ lives in danger. The defendant did not conform to the standard of conduct established for