Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation Applied in BER Case 07-10
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#Third-Party_Direct_Notification_Obligation_Applied_in_BER_Case_07-10
Properties
Instance of
Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
Applied to
Barn structural modification risk
Building owner (Jones)
Balancing with
Regulatory notification obligation
Concrete expression
Engineer A should have first notified the current owner (Jones) of structural concerns regarding the barn before or alongside notifying the town supervisor, because Jones was the party directly exposed to the structural risk and had the most immediate ability to take protective action
Confidence
0.94
Importance
high
Interpretation
The current owner is the party most directly exposed to the safety risk and should receive direct notification, not merely indirect notification through regulatory channels
Invoked by
Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
Tension resolution
Direct notification to the affected party is required in addition to regulatory notification, not as a substitute for it
Source Evidence
Source text
it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
Text references
Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
TTL
@prefix case132: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/132#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@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#> .
case132:Third-Party_Direct_Notification_Obligation_Applied_in_BER_Case_07-10 a proeth:Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation Applied in BER Case 07-10" ;
proeth:appliedto "Barn structural modification risk",
"Building owner (Jones)" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Regulatory notification obligation" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A should have first notified the current owner (Jones) of structural concerns regarding the barn before or alongside notifying the town supervisor, because Jones was the party directly exposed to the structural risk and had the most immediate ability to take protective action" ;
proeth:confidence "0.94" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "132" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "132" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The current owner is the party most directly exposed to the safety risk and should receive direct notification, not merely indirect notification through regulatory channels" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation" ;
proeth:sourcetext "it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Direct notification to the affected party is required in addition to regulatory notification, not as a substitute for it" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor",
"in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 132 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T18:17:34.028245"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 132 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
132
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
First case
132
Generated
2026-02-27T18:05:10.669588+00:00
Attributed to
Case 132 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-27T18:17:34.028245
Generated by
ProEthica Case 132 Extraction