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
Engineer A Scope Non-Excuse Adjacent Property Safety Owner Y
prevails over
Engineer A Scope Boundary Recognition Adjacent Property Safety Observation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Adjacent Property Safety Hazard Observation – Owner Y Site
BER 88-6 City Engineer Supervisory Inaction Environmental Complicity Avoidance
prevails over
Engineer A Faithful Agent Client X Boundary Owner Y Safety
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Adjacent Property Safety Hazard Observation – Owner Y Site
Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Response
prevails over
Engineer A Adjacent Third-Party Safety Disclosure Owner Y
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Site Safety Observation
- Engineer A Personal Conscience Discretion on Adjacent Site Safety
- Potential Unconfirmed Safety Risk – Adjacent Subcontractor Work
Featured
Engineer A Adjacent Third-Party Safety Disclosure Owner Y
prevails over
Engineer A Faithful Agent Client X Boundary Owner Y Safety
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Adjacent Property Safety Hazard Observation – Owner Y Site
BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusal Right Recognition
prevails over
BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Non-Mandatory Duty
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 82-5 Engineer Whistleblower Personal Conscience Right
Engineer A Employer Intermediary Escalation ES Consulting Owner Y Safety
prevails over
Engineer A Permissible Employer Escalation Adjacent Safety Observation
No State context committed for this edge.
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Adjacent Third-Party Safety Disclosure Owner Y vs Ethics Bodies Unlimited Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Engineer A Case
Engineer A Employer Intermediary Escalation ES Consulting Owner Y Safety vs Engineer A No-Nexus Direct Notification Owner Y Conditional
Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Response vs Engineer A Proportional Escalation Calibration Owner Y Safety Risk
Engineer A Proportional Escalation Calibration Owner Y Safety Risk vs Non-Contractual Safety Observation Scope Boundary Recognition Engineer A Adjacent Property
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.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
A faithful-agent duty yields to a public-protection obligation. The yielding obligation ("Faithful Agent") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
24-01
Balancing Client Directives and Public...
|
Engineer L Client Budget Pressure Refusal | Engineer L Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer L Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards; Engineer L Resource Constrained Client |
| Engineer L Client Override Regulatory Report | Engineer L Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer L Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards; Engineer L Resource Constrained Client | |
|
20-4
Public Health, Safety, and...
|
Engineer B Post-Override Regulatory Reporting | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | MWC Override of Engineers A and B |
| Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting | Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary | MWC Override of Engineers A and B | |
|
95-5
Failure To Include Information In...
|
Engineer B Expert Witness Neutrality | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer B Adversarial Engagement; Engineer B Client Defense Bias |
| Engineer B Complete Technical Reporting | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer B Adversarial Engagement; Engineer B Client Defense Bias | |
|
04-8
Public Welfare—Client Action Following...
|
Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill | Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland | Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk; Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict |
| Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limits | Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland | Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk; Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict |