Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 22-5 (2022) · Professional Responsibility if Appropriate Authority Fails to Act
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 1: The Board resolves the tension between 'public welfare pa...
Given that Engineer B's judgment was overruled and Engineer B then notified the Water Commissioners and the State regulator, the Board concluded that this act of notification discharged the paramountcy obligation in full, removing any need to further weigh it against the faithful agent duty to ABC Engineers despite ABC's dependency on City M.
What the board concluded
- Clear reporting of unresolved public health and safety risks to “appropriate authorities” satisfies Engineer B’s obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare.
- Any additional steps taken beyond the notification of appropriate authorities are not an obligation of Engineer B but rather a personal choice as a citizen, and should be taken with due consideration of the multiple stakeholders in this matter and the engineer’s many ethical obligations.