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)
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 the same tension
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.
| Case | Prevailing type | Yielding type | Relation to this case |
|---|---|---|---|
|
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.