Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 10-5 (2010) · Public Health and Safety—Observing Off-Site Safety Issues
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
Analytical conclusion 3: Bounded Responsibility for Adjacent Hazard and the Unreas...
Because Engineer A's contractual scope was confined to Client X's project and the observed hazard lacked imminence, the Board concluded that the paramount safety duty is satisfied through proportionate internal action rather than an open-ended obligation to police all adjacent hazards, while signaling that a closer relationship between Client X and Owner...
What the board concluded
- Engineer A should bring this potential safety issue to the attention of Engineer A’s supervisor and ES Consulting. The Board assumes that the potential safety issues do not pose an imminent danger; therefore, Engineer A does not have an obligation to report this issue beyond his superiors in ES Consulting.