Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 00-5 (2000) · Public Welfare—Bridge Structure
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
BER 89-7 Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Structural Safety
prevails over
BER 89-7 Engineer Brief Report Mention Insufficiency Safety Notification
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 89-7 Confidentiality Agreement Suppressing Occupant Safety Report
Engineer A Imminent Bridge Collapse Multi-Authority Campaign Escalation
prevails over
Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Public Safety
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Public Pressure and Employment Pressure Safety Abrogation
Featured
Engineer A Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Reporting
prevails over
Engineer A Non-Engineer Director Structural Decision Challenge
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Retired Non-Engineer Inspector Substituted for Engineering Evaluation
Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Responsibility Bridge
prevails over
Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Public Safety
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Public Pressure and Employment Pressure Safety Abrogation
Engineer B BER 92-6 Business Relationship Non-Subordination Hazardous Disclosure
prevails over
Engineer B BER 92-6 Hazardous Material Vague Language Subterfuge Prohibition
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 92-6 Engineer B Business Relationship Safety Suppression
Engineer B BER 92-6 Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation
prevails over
Engineer B BER 92-6 Hazardous Material Vague Language Subterfuge Prohibition
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 92-6 Engineer B Business Relationship Safety Suppression
BER 89-7 Engineer Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal
prevails over
BER 89-7 Engineer Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 89-7 Out-of-Scope Code Violation in Occupied Building Sale
Engineer A Public Pressure Non-Subordination Bridge Closure Safety
prevails over
Engineer A Pressure-Yielding Abrogation Fundamental Responsibility Prohibition
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Public Pressure and Employment Pressure Safety Abrogation
Engineer A Frightening Movement Written Safety Escalation
prevails over
Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination Public Safety
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Public Pressure and Employment Pressure Safety Abrogation
BER 90-5 Engineer Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override Imminent Occupant Safety
prevails over
BER 90-5 Engineer Confidentiality Scope Limitation Public Danger Disclosure
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 90-5 Attorney-Directed Safety Concealment in Litigation
Engineer A Multi-Authority Escalation Unresolved Bridge Safety
prevails over
Engineer A Non-Engineer Director Structural Decision Challenge
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Retired Non-Engineer Inspector Substituted for Engineering Evaluation
Engineer A Post-Remediation Licensed Inspection Prerequisite
prevails over
Engineer A Condemned Bridge Reopening Resistance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Non-Engineer Public Works Director Reopening Override
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
BER 89-7 Engineer Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal vs BER 89-7 Engineer Confidentiality Non-Override Structural Safety
Engineer A Five-Ton Limit Enforcement Escalation Log Trucks Tankers vs Engineer A Overweight Vehicle Enforcement Escalation
What the board concluded
- Engineer A should take immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this is ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.
- Engineer A should also work with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
- Engineer A should determine whether a basis exists for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.