Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 12-11 (2012) · Public Health and Safety—Scaffolding for Highway Ramp

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
From the Board's conclusions in Case 12-11:
  • 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