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.
dissolution
Analytical conclusion 2: The faithful-agent duty owed to the state client (II.4) w...
Given that Engineer A could present the state with a complete set of feasible route and relocation options without compromising client loyalty, the board concluded that faithful agency and public welfare were not truly in tension, since serving the client faithfully meant giving it full information rather than choosing between the state's preference and...
dissolution
Analytical conclusion 3: Regarding Q103, recommending non-engineering solutions su...
Because Engineer A's route analysis itself identified the farmhouse impact, the board reasoned that recommending relocation as a feasible response falls within, not beyond, the proper advisory role, and does not conflict with objectivity.
specification
Analytical conclusion 3: Objectivity in Controversial Statements and the duty to a...
Given that Engineer A had knowledge of multiple feasible alternatives including relocation, and given that the state depended on an unbiased report, the board concluded that objectivity is satisfied through thoroughness of disclosure rather than silence on welfare-protective options, allowing Engineer A to include relocation among the routes described...
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 15-12:
- Engineer A has an obligation to advise the state on all feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this matter, consistent with the interests of the public, including physically moving the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site owned by the family or another party.