Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/110#Engineer_B_Sole-Purpose_Structural_Footing_Sub-Delegation_Infeasibility_Recognition_Obligation
Properties
Instance of
Sole-PurposeRetainedEngineerCross-DisciplineSub-DelegationInfeasibilityRecognitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Sole-PurposeRetainedEngineerCross-DisciplineSub-DelegationInfeasibilityRecognitionObligation
Case context
Engineer B was retained by the construction contractor specifically for structural footing design; the Board considered and rejected sub-delegation as a viable compliance path given the sole-purpose nature of the retention.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.89
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer B
Obligation statement
Engineer B, retained solely and exclusively to design structural footings, was obligated to recognize that sub-delegating the structural footing design to a competent structural engineer was not a feasible ethical escape route, because doing so would render Engineer B's own retention purposeless.
Temporal scope
Upon recognizing the competence gap, before or upon accepting the sole-purpose retention
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
Text references
If Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that very task, we have to seriously wonder what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what it was being paid.
It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, we do not think this would be feasible under the facts.
TTL
@prefix case110: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/110#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case110:Engineer_B_Sole-Purpose_Structural_Footing_Sub-Delegation_Infeasibility_Recognition_Obligation a proeth:Sole-PurposeRetainedEngineerCross-DisciplineSub-DelegationInfeasibilityRecognitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case110:Engineer_B_Cross-Discipline_Structural_Footing_Assignment_Acceptance_Refusal_Obligation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case110:Engineer_B_Sole-Purpose_Structural_Footing_Engagement_Precluding_Delegation ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer B was retained by the construction contractor specifically for structural footing design; the Board considered and rejected sub-delegation as a viable compliance path given the sole-purpose nature of the retention." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.89" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case110:Retained-Engineer_Sub-Delegation_Infeasibility_Constraint_Applied_to_Engineer_B_Structural_Footing_Sole-Purpose_Retention ;
proeth:discoveredincase "110" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "110" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Sole-Purpose Retained Engineer Cross-Discipline Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B, retained solely and exclusively to design structural footings, was obligated to recognize that sub-delegating the structural footing design to a competent structural engineer was not a feasible ethical escape route, because doing so would render Engineer B's own retention purposeless." ;
proeth:sourcetext "It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon recognizing the competence gap, before or upon accepting the sole-purpose retention" ;
proeth:textreferences "If Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that very task, we have to seriously wonder what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what it was being paid.",
"It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.",
"While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, we do not think this would be feasible under the facts." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 110 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T10:30:44.204405"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 110 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
110
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
First case
110
Generated
2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
Attributed to
Case 110 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T10:30:44.204405
Generated by
ProEthica Case 110 Extraction