Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 23-4 (2023) · Acknowledging Errors in Design

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 T Truthful Testimony Duty prevails over Engineer T Error Acknowledgment Duty

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

this resolution as a triple in OntServe

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Unresolved Design Error Question

What the board concluded

It was ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude no error had been made in design, based on review and analysis of the facts from both from a legal/contractual perspective and from an ethical perspective. Engineer T’s design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care.
It was ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred because there was no error. However, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project may have prevented the accident and worker injury, and this was a missed opportunity to hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare. Engineer T is encouraged to share this hard “lesson learned” as part of...
It was ethical for Engineer T to refrain from acknowledging an error during the deposition because there was no error. Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error.

How comparable cases resolved this and related tensions

Read at the type level, this resolution is: Professional Accountability Obligation yields to Objectivity 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 (3)
93-8 Use Of Broad Indemnification Clause For...	Professional Accountability Obligation	Legal Obligation	The yielding type here prevails there
85-4 Objectivity of Engineer Retained as Expert	Faithful Agent Obligation	Objectivity Obligation	The prevailing type here yields there
24-5 Sustainable Development and Resilient...	Faithful Agent Obligation	Professional Accountability Obligation	The yielding type here also yields there, to a different duty

No other committed case closely matches this exact pair of obligations yet.