Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 79-7 (1979) · Review of Original Engineer's Design
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 2: Objectivity of Engineer B Report and Professional Dignity...
Given that Engineer B's sizing inadequacy finding was genuine and no injurious intent was shown, the board concluded that Engineer A's reputational harm was an incidental and permissible byproduct of truthful reporting rather than an ethical violation, because dignity protections are reserved for malicious or reckless criticism, not accurate technical findings.
specification
Analytical conclusion 5: In response to Q201 and Q204, any tension between Peer Re...
Given that Engineer A's engagement had concluded years before Engineer B's plumbing and heating study, the Board concluded that the termination condition of the peer review cooperation duty was satisfied, permitting and obligating Engineer B to report safety-related deficiencies fully to the owner despite not separately consulting Engineer A.
What the board concluded
- Engineer B was not unethical in taking the assignment and in rendering the report to the owner.