Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 93-8 (1993) · Use Of Broad Indemnification Clause For Pollution Services

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 Liability Protection Duty prevails over Client Indemnification Duty

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

this resolution as a triple in OntServe

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Limited Pollution Insurance Availability

Engineer A Responsibility Acceptance Duty prevails over Client Indemnification Duty

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

this resolution as a triple in OntServe

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Limited Pollution Insurance Availability

What the board concluded

It would not be ethical for Engineer A to continue to require a broad indemnification provision in all of his agreements where he provides pollution-related services. Engineer A should tailor the indemnification agreement to accept reasonable liability and consider current availability of professional liability insurance as appropriate to the project.

Recorded violations: Continued Indemnification Requirement violates Engineer A Responsibility Acceptance Duty Continued Indemnification Requirement violates Engineer A Liability Protection Duty

How comparable cases resolved this and related tensions

Read at the type level, this resolution is: Legal Obligation yields to Professional Accountability 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 (6)
24-5 Sustainable Development and Resilient...	Faithful Agent Obligation	Professional Accountability Obligation	The prevailing type here yields there
23-4 Acknowledging Errors in Design	Objectivity Obligation	Professional Accountability Obligation	The prevailing type here yields there
21-2 Public Health, Safety, and ...	Public Safety Obligation	Legal Obligation	The yielding type here also yields there, to a different duty
21-2 Public Health, Safety, and ...	Future Conditions Consideration Obligation	Legal Obligation	The yielding type here also yields there, to a different duty
85-3 P.E. Requirement for County Surveyor Position	Competence Obligation	Legal Obligation	The yielding type here also yields there, to a different duty
85-3 P.E. Requirement for County Surveyor Position	Ethical Conduct Obligation	Legal Obligation	The yielding type here also yields there, to a different duty

Closest instance-level matches, ranked on the specific obligations and contexts of this case:

Case	Obligation that prevailed	Yielding obligation	Context (defeasibleUnder)
18-9 Public Health and Safety—Building Codes to...	Engineer A Public Safety Duty	Engineer A Client Persuasion Duty	Client Duty Versus Public Safety Conflict; Owner Cost Based Refusal
90-5 Failure To Report Information Affecting...	Engineer A Tenant Safety Duty	Engineer A Confidentiality Duty	Safety Endangerment Confidentiality Release