Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 18-9 (2018) · Public Health and Safety—Building Codes to Address Environmental Risk

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 Public Safety Duty prevails over Engineer A Client Persuasion Duty
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
  • Client Duty Versus Public Safety Conflict
  • Owner Cost Based Refusal
Engineer A Public Safety Duty prevails over Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Duty
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
  • Coastal Storm Surge Safety Risk
  • Owner Cost Based Refusal
Open tensions recorded without a resolution: Engineer A Client Persuasion Duty vs Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Duty
What the board concluded
  • Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage. If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A’s design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
How comparable cases resolved this and related tensions

Read at the type level, this resolution is: Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation yields to Safety 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
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)
96-8
Peer Review - Confidentiality Agreements
Engineer A Public Safety Duty Engineer A Confidentiality Duty Confidentiality Versus Cooperation Dilemma
93-8
Use Of Broad Indemnification Clause For...
Engineer A Liability Protection Duty Client Indemnification Duty Limited Pollution Insurance Availability
92-6
Public Welfare - Hazardous Waste
Engineer B Paramount Public Welfare Duty Engineer B Faithful Agent Duty Client Business Relationship Conflict
88-6
Whistleblowing - City Engineer
Engineer A Proper Authority Reporting Duty Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Loyalty Versus Public Protection Conflict
21-2
Public Health, Safety, and ...
Engineer A Public Safety Duty Beyond Law Engineer A Design Compliance Duty Outdated Climate Design Standards