Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 95-5 (1995) · Failure To Include Information In Engineering Report
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.
dissolution
Analytical conclusion 2: Complete Reporting in Test Pile Report and Complete Repor...
Given that Engineer B treated client loyalty as loyalty to the municipality's litigation goals, the board concluded that the apparent conflict between completeness and loyalty was illusory, because properly construed Code-based client service requires disclosing unfavorable facts like the equipment failure and refusal data so the client can act on a full...
What the board concluded
- It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning the failed operation of the testing equipment.
- It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with any representative of Engineer A about the project.
- It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction.