Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 96-8 (1996) · Peer Review - Confidentiality Agreements

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 competition structure in OntServe
Featured
Engineer A Authority Cooperation Duty prevails over Engineer A Confidentiality Duty
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
  • Confidentiality Versus Cooperation Dilemma
Engineer A Public Safety Duty prevails over Engineer A Confidentiality Duty
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
  • Confidentiality Versus Cooperation Dilemma
What the board concluded
  • If Engineer A determines that Engineer B’s work is or may be in violation of state and local safety requirements and endangers public health, safety and welfare, the appropriate action is for Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue. If Engineer A and Engineer B are unable to resolve the issue, Engineer...
Recorded violations: Design Work Execution violates Engineer A Public Safety Duty
How comparable cases resolved this and related tensions

Read at the type level, this resolution is: Confidentiality Obligation yields to Reporting Obligation. Comparison across cases happens at this level; the duty types recur while each case's obligations instantiate them. Cases below are grouped by how much of that pairing they share. A duty type that yields here may prevail elsewhere, which is the context-dependence itself, not an inconsistency.

Same tension: both duty types match, so the board ruled on this exact pairing. Related tension: only one duty type matches; the other duty differs, so these show how a type behaves elsewhere rather than a ruling on this pairing.

Case Prevailing type Yielding type Relation to this case
Same tension: both duty types match (2)
89-7
Duty To Report Safety Violations
Reporting Obligation Confidentiality Obligation Same tension, resolved the same way
90-5
Failure To Report Information Affecting...
Reporting Obligation Confidentiality Obligation Same tension, resolved the same way
Related tension: one duty type matches (9)

Closest instance-level matches, ranked on the specific obligations and contexts of this case:

Case Obligation that prevailed Yielding obligation Context (defeasibleUnder)
90-5
Failure To Report Information Affecting...
Engineer A Tenant Safety Duty Engineer A Confidentiality Duty Safety Endangerment Confidentiality Release
89-7
Duty To Report Safety Violations
Engineer A Safety Precedence Duty Engineer A Confidentiality Duty Code Exception Disclosure Release
88-6
Whistleblowing - City Engineer
Engineer A Proper Authority Reporting Duty Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Loyalty Versus Public Protection Conflict
22-2
Sharing As-Built Drawings
Engineer D Formal Sharing Channel Duty Engineer D Faithful Agent Duty Informal As-Built Sharing Impropriety Appearance; Pre-Bid Selective Sharing Award Risk
18-9
Public Health and Safety—Building Codes to...
Engineer A Public Safety Duty Engineer A Client Persuasion Duty Client Duty Versus Public Safety Conflict; Owner Cost Based Refusal