BER 89-7 Engineer Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/137#BER_89-7_Engineer_Passive_Acquiescence_Independent_Ethical_Failure
Properties
Instance of
PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation
Case context
BER Case No. 89-7: The engineer informed the client of the code deficiencies but did not force the issue, going along without dissent or comment, which the Board found constituted an independent ethical failure.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.94
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer (BER Case No. 89-7)
Obligation statement
The engineer in BER 89-7 was obligated to actively insist that the client take appropriate corrective action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or to refuse to continue work on the project, rather than going along without dissent or comment after informing the client.
Temporal scope
After informing the client of the electrical and mechanical code violations
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
BER 89-7 Out-of-Scope Code Violation in Occupied Building Sale
derivedFromPrinciple
Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Withdrawal Invoked in BER 89-7
Source Evidence
Source text
the engineer 'did not force the issue, but instead went along without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.'
Text references
The Board concluded that the engineer had an obligation to go further, particularly because the NSPE Code uses the term 'paramount' to describe the engineer's obligation to protect the public safety, health, and welfare.
the engineer 'did not force the issue, but instead went along without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.'
TTL
@prefix case137: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/137#> .
@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#> .
case137:BER_89-7_Engineer_Passive_Acquiescence_Independent_Ethical_Failure a proeth:PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER 89-7 Engineer Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case137:BER_89-7_Out-of-Scope_Code_Violation_in_Occupied_Building_Sale ;
proeth:casecontext "BER Case No. 89-7: The engineer informed the client of the code deficiencies but did not force the issue, going along without dissent or comment, which the Board found constituted an independent ethical failure." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.94" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case137:Insistence_on_Client_Remedial_Action_or_Withdrawal_Invoked_in_BER_89-7 ;
proeth:discoveredincase "137" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T05:33:27.923922+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "137" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T05:33:27.923922+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer (BER Case No. 89-7)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The engineer in BER 89-7 was obligated to actively insist that the client take appropriate corrective action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or to refuse to continue work on the project, rather than going along without dissent or comment after informing the client." ;
proeth:sourcetext "the engineer 'did not force the issue, but instead went along without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.'" ;
proeth:temporalscope "After informing the client of the electrical and mechanical code violations" ;
proeth:textreferences "The Board concluded that the engineer had an obligation to go further, particularly because the NSPE Code uses the term 'paramount' to describe the engineer's obligation to protect the public safety, health, and welfare.",
"the engineer 'did not force the issue, but instead went along without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 137 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T05:45:21.971379"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 137 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
137
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T05:33:27.923922+00:00
First case
137
Generated
2026-03-01T05:33:27.923922+00:00
Attributed to
Case 137 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T05:45:21.971379
Generated by
ProEthica Case 137 Extraction