Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 21-10 (2021) · Protecting Public Health, Safety, and Welfare

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 5: Q202: There is no genuine conflict between confidentialit...
Because confidentiality under II.1.c and III.4 protects only the Homeowner's business affairs and Engineer A owes no such duty to the Builder, the board concluded that reporting the Builder's apparent ordinance violation creates no genuine confidentiality conflict.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 21-10:
  • If Engineer A reasonably believes that the probability of property damage is high and that the probable amount of property damage is significant, Engineer A has a duty to advise the Owner/Client of the risk.If Engineer A reasonably believes that frozen pipes would cause the sprinkler system to become inoperable, Engineer A could reasonably conclude that there is an imminent risk to the...