Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 12-11 (2012) · Public Health and Safety—Scaffolding for Highway Ramp
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: Public Safety in Scaffolding Design was treated as logica...
Because Engineer A knew of the illegal-traffic hazard before the scaffolding design was finalized, the Board treated disclosure as a precondition to completing the design under III.2.b, rather than allowing the narrow scope of the assignment to excuse silence on a known risk.
What the board concluded
- Engineer A should immediately notify verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A’s immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps.
Recorded violations:
Escalation Omission violates Engineer A Supervisor Notification Duty