Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 63-6 (1963) · Conflicting Engineering Opinions
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
Featured
State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
prevails over
State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer Advocate Appearance Before Public Body
BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment of Efficiency-Advocate Engineer
prevails over
Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Multi-Year Public Infrastructure Policy Controversy
Private Power Company PE Adverse Technical Finding Non-Malicious Non-Violation
prevails over
Private Power Company PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition
prevails over
State Power Commission PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
State Power Commission PE Adverse Technical Finding Non-Malicious Non-Violation
prevails over
State Power Commission PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition
prevails over
Private Power Company PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
Private Power Company PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency
prevails over
Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Private Power Company Engineer Legislative Testimony
BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Indictment Recognition
prevails over
Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Multi-Year Public Infrastructure Policy Controversy
State Power Commission PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency
prevails over
State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- State Power Commission Engineer Legislative Testimony
Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
prevails over
Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer Advocate Appearance Before Public Body
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Indictment Recognition vs BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment of Efficiency-Advocate Engineer
Private Power Company PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory vs Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
Private Power Company PE Fact-Grounded High-Dam Opinion vs Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
Private Power Company PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation vs Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
State Power Commission PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory vs State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
State Power Commission PE Fact-Grounded Low-Dams Opinion vs State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
State Power Commission PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation vs State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
What the board concluded
- It is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism yields to State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty. The yielding obligation ("State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
96-8
Peer Review - Confidentiality Agreements
|
Engineer A Peer Review Imminent Harm Immediate Notification | Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation | Graduated Escalation Obligation — Peer Review Safety Discovery; Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm — Engineer B Work |
|
09-10
Withholding Information Useful to...
|
Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Sequential Escalation BER 96-8 | Review Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Override of Public Safety BER 96-8 | BER 96-8 Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery |
|
75-5
Personal Misconduct
|
NSPE BER Case 72-6 Public Confidence Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Invocation | NSPE BER Case 72-6 Professional Society Judiciousness Personal Conduct Discipline Caveat | NSPE Disciplinary Jurisdiction Over Engineer Criminal Misconduct |
|
65-9
Public Criticism of Proposed Public Highway Route
|
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Temperate Non-Malicious Peer Critique Compliance | Consulting Engineer Open Letter Adverse Peer Critique Non-Malicious Non-Violation Finding | Consulting Engineer Prior Highway Connection |
|
22-3
Review of Other Engineer’s Work
|
Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance | Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance | Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation; Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition |