{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Action_Straightforward_Design_Selection",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Conduct comprehensive design alternatives analysis",
    "Consult with construction safety specialists",
    "Invest in more expensive but safer design options"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Sought efficiency and cost-effectiveness, likely under budget/schedule pressures",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Higher upfront costs but safer construction",
    "Delayed timeline but informed decision",
    "Better safety outcomes but potential client resistance to costs"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Design decisions have life-cycle safety implications beyond just operational use",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Economic efficiency vs worker safety during construction",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Worker safety, construction costs, project timeline, professional reputation",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer T selected a straightforward design approach without exploring alternative design options that might have provided better construction access.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Constrained construction access"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional competence",
    "Client service"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Efficiency",
    "Cost effectiveness"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T (Design Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Cost and time constraints versus exploring safer alternatives",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized straightforward approach for cost and time benefits"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Complete design efficiently within constraints",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural design expertise",
    "Construction knowledge"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial project scope establishment",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Public safety consideration",
    "Due diligence in design alternatives"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Straightforward Design Selection"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Action_Design_Completion_and_Documentation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Conduct independent safety review",
    "Seek peer consultation on design",
    "Implement additional safety measures"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Confidence in technical adequacy of design, focus on meeting code requirements rather than best practices",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potential identification of safety issues before construction",
    "Fresh perspective might reveal blind spots",
    "Proactive risk mitigation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Professional responsibility extends beyond code compliance to foreseeable safety risks",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Meeting minimum standards vs pursuing optimal safety outcomes",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public safety, professional liability, quality of engineering practice",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer T proceeded with finalizing the constrained access design and issued construction documents without further safety review.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Transfer construction risks to contractor"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional deliverables",
    "Contract fulfillment"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional responsibility",
    "Risk allocation"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T (Design Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional standard of care versus enhanced public safety",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Relied on contractual risk transfer to contractor"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Deliver completed design package",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Design documentation",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Design completion",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Constructability review",
    "Worker safety consideration"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Design Completion and Documentation"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Action_No_Error_Determination",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Acknowledge design could have been improved",
    "Conduct thorough post-incident analysis",
    "Implement design process improvements"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Self-protection, professional reputation preservation, reluctance to admit fault",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potential legal exposure but ethical integrity",
    "Organizational learning and prevention of future incidents",
    "Enhanced professional practices"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Post-incident response affects learning, accountability, and future safety improvements",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional self-interest vs honest acknowledgment of potential shortcomings",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional integrity, legal liability, organizational learning, future safety culture",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer T and Engineer B jointly decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of a design error despite the serious injury.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential ethical criticism",
    "Legal exposure"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional peer consultation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional protection",
    "Standard of care defense"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T and Engineer B (Engineering Professionals)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Personal responsibility versus formal error determination",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Determined technical compliance with standards was sufficient"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Maintain professional standing and avoid liability",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical evaluation",
    "Professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Post-accident discussion",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Honest self-assessment",
    "Public welfare priority"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "No Error Determination"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Action_Factual_Deposition_Response",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Volunteer acknowledgment of design limitations",
    "Provide comprehensive analysis of alternative approaches",
    "Focus solely on technical compliance defense"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Legal strategy to minimize liability while maintaining technical honesty about facts",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Higher legal risk but fuller professional accountability",
    "Educational value but potential liability",
    "Minimal legal exposure but missed learning opportunity"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Professional honesty during legal proceedings balances truthfulness with strategic communication",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Legal self-protection vs complete professional transparency and accountability",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "resolution",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Legal liability, professional credibility, public trust in engineering profession",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer T chose to respond factually during deposition but deliberately did not volunteer acknowledgement of possible design errors or shortcomings.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Incomplete disclosure of professional reflection"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Legal truthfulness",
    "Attorney advice compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Legal compliance",
    "Professional self-protection"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T (Design Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Legal advice versus engineering ethics disclosure",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Followed legal counsel to avoid characterizing work as error"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Comply with legal obligations while minimizing liability",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical knowledge",
    "Legal testimony skills"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During deposition",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Complete professional disclosure",
    "Public welfare transparency"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Factual Deposition Response"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Event_Worker_Serious_Injury",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What responsibility do design engineers bear for construction worker safety?",
    "How should engineers balance design efficiency against worker protection?",
    "At what point does a \u0027straightforward\u0027 design become negligent design?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Trauma and pain for injured worker; guilt and shock for Engineer T; anxiety for construction team; distress for worker\u0027s family",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between engineering efficiency and duty to protect workers; questions whether cost considerations can justify increased safety risks; demonstrates cascading effects of design decisions on vulnerable workers",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates how design decisions directly impact worker safety; demonstrates the real-world consequences of prioritizing simplicity over comprehensive safety analysis",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "construction_company": "Work stoppage, safety violations, workers\u0027 compensation claims, reputation damage",
    "engineer_t": "Professional liability, ethical questioning, potential legal exposure",
    "injured_worker": "Physical harm, potential long-term disability, lost wages, medical expenses",
    "project_owner": "Delays, cost overruns, potential litigation, public scrutiny"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Worker_Safety_Protection"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Action_Straightforward_Design_Selection",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Construction halted; emergency response activated; investigation initiated; legal exposure created",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Emergency_Response",
    "Incident_Reporting",
    "Safety_Review",
    "Legal_Cooperation"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "A construction worker was seriously injured during the construction phase due to the constrained access created by the structural design modifications.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "critical",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During construction",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "Worker Serious Injury"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Event_Alternative_Design_Realization",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Should engineers be held accountable for design alternatives they didn\u0027t consider?",
    "How can engineers systematically identify and evaluate safety alternatives?",
    "What role should cost play in safety-critical design decisions?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Regret and self-doubt for Engineer T; frustration from stakeholders who question why alternatives weren\u0027t considered initially",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Highlights the challenge of retrospective judgment versus real-time decision-making; questions the adequacy of \u0027standard practice\u0027 when safety is at stake",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates importance of comprehensive design analysis; shows how hindsight bias can obscure the need for thorough upfront safety consideration",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "aftermath",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_t": "Professional credibility questioned, ethical burden increased, competence challenged",
    "engineering_profession": "Raises questions about standard practice adequacy",
    "future_projects": "Precedent set for more thorough safety analysis",
    "injured_worker": "Knowledge that injury was potentially preventable compounds suffering"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Honesty_Constraint",
    "Competence_Demonstration"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Action_Worker_Serious_Injury",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer awareness expanded; professional judgment questioned; learning opportunity created",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Honest_Evaluation",
    "Competence_Improvement",
    "Future_Prevention"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer T realized that alternative design approaches could have provided better safety for workers, though at higher cost.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Post-accident",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Alternative Design Realization"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Event_Legal_Proceedings_Initiation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should engineers prepare for potential legal scrutiny of their work?",
    "What is the relationship between ethical professional conduct and legal liability?",
    "How does the adversarial legal system align or conflict with engineering ethics?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Stress and anxiety for Engineer T facing legal scrutiny; hope for justice from injured worker; concern from engineering colleagues about professional reputation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between professional self-protection and accountability; demonstrates how legal system enforces professional responsibility; questions adequacy of professional ethics without legal backing",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how engineering decisions can have legal consequences; demonstrates the intersection of professional ethics and legal accountability",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_t": "Legal costs, professional reputation at risk, career implications, stress",
    "engineering_profession": "Precedent setting for design liability, professional practice standards",
    "injured_worker": "Opportunity for compensation, validation of harm, legal costs and time",
    "insurance_companies": "Financial exposure, risk assessment implications"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Legal_Compliance_Mandatory",
    "Truthfulness_Under_Oath"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#Action_Worker_Serious_Injury",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Formal legal process initiated; sworn testimony required; professional conduct under legal scrutiny",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Legal_Cooperation",
    "Truthful_Testimony",
    "Professional_Defense"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Legal proceedings were initiated related to the worker injury incident, requiring depositions and formal legal responses.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Later",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Legal Proceedings Initiation"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#CausalChain_2a0f5745",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer T selected a straightforward design approach without exploring alternative design options that resulted in constrained access conditions leading to worker injury",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T chose straightforward approach without exploring alternatives",
      "proeth:element": "Straightforward Design Selection",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Constrained access design finalized and construction documents issued",
      "proeth:element": "Design Completion and Documentation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T realizes safer alternatives existed but design already committed",
      "proeth:element": "Alternative Design Realization",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers T and B decide not to acknowledge design limitations",
      "proeth:element": "No Error Determination",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Construction worker seriously injured due to constrained access conditions",
      "proeth:element": "Worker Serious Injury",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Straightforward Design Selection",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Alternative design approaches could have provided better safety for workers and prevented the injury",
  "proeth:effect": "Worker Serious Injury",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Selection of constrained access design",
    "Failure to explore safer alternatives",
    "Proceeding with construction under unsafe conditions"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of constrained design + worker exposure + lack of alternative consideration"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#CausalChain_ba4b3a8c",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer T and Engineer B jointly decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of design limitations, leading to legal proceedings when injury occurred without proper disclosure",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T realizes safer design alternatives existed",
      "proeth:element": "Alternative Design Realization",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers T and B decide not to acknowledge design limitations",
      "proeth:element": "No Error Determination",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Worker injured under conditions that could have been prevented",
      "proeth:element": "Worker Serious Injury",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Legal action initiated due to injury and potential professional negligence",
      "proeth:element": "Legal Proceedings Initiation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "No Error Determination",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Proper acknowledgment of design limitations could have led to safety measures preventing legal exposure",
  "proeth:effect": "Legal Proceedings Initiation",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Knowledge of design limitations",
    "Decision to not acknowledge issues",
    "Subsequent worker injury"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T and Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of concealed design risks + injury occurrence + lack of professional disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/9#CausalChain_64f30390",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The worker injury incident led to legal proceedings requiring Engineer T to provide deposition testimony while choosing not to volunteer acknowledgment of design limitations",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Construction worker seriously injured due to constrained access design",
      "proeth:element": "Worker Serious Injury",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Legal action initiated requiring expert testimony",
      "proeth:element": "Legal Proceedings Initiation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T provides factual responses but doesn\u0027t volunteer design limitation acknowledgment",
      "proeth:element": "Factual Deposition Response",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Worker Serious Injury",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the injury, no deposition would have been required",
  "proeth:effect": "Factual Deposition Response",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Worker injury occurrence",
    "Legal proceedings initiation",
    "Engineer T\u0027s involvement in design"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Legal requirement for expert testimony + Engineer T\u0027s design responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}