Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 23-2 (2023) · Excess Stormwater Runoff
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.
Resolved without defeat
The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.
specification
Because IBM's analysis conflicted with BWJ's original modeling but the source of the discrepancy remained unconfirmed, the Board directed R to re-review the analysis first, reasoning that responsible acknowledgment of error under III.8 and III.1.a presupposes verification rather than immediate concession.
What the board concluded
- Given the facts, the Board interprets that Engineer J’s transition from the private sector to the public sector was not recent and there does not appear to be a conflict between J’s former work at BWJ and their current work for City C.
- Although flood damage and independent consultant Firm IBM’s analysis show larger flows, Principal Engineer R and Principal Engineers R’s firm should confirm whether an error exists – essentially, they should re-review Firm IBM’s analysis. If Firm BWJ determines they made a mistake, Principal Engineer R is responsible to acknowledge errors.