DP5
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/140#DP5
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP5
Decision question
If Engineer A's supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, what escalation steps is Engineer A ethically obligated to take, and how does the proportionality principle calibrate those steps relative to the full multi-authority campaign required in BER 00-5?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond his immediate supervisor — to higher OPQ Construction authority or directly to the state DOT — if the supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, and the sequencing and proportionality of that escalation relative to BER 00-5
Option1
Escalate the unresolved hazard through higher authority within OPQ Construction, and if internal channels also fail to produce corrective action, notify the state DOT directly in writing — while simultaneously refusing to finalize or seal the scaffolding design until the hazard is formally addressed
Option2
Treat the supervisor's non-response as a determination by OPQ Construction management that the hazard does not warrant project modification, document Engineer A's original notification in writing as a record of fulfilled duty, and proceed with completing the scaffolding design incorporating maximum feasible clearance buffers as an engineering accommodation — deferring further escalation unless a specific incident occurs
Option3
Escalate internally within OPQ Construction to the next supervisory level, and if that level also fails to act, submit a written notification to the state DOT framed as a contractor safety concern through the project's formal communication channel — stopping short of direct law enforcement notification on the grounds that the hazard's probability and imminence do not yet meet the threshold that justified the full multi-authority campaign in BER 00-5
Role
Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn
TTL
@prefix case140: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/140#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case140:DP5 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "If Engineer A's supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, what escalation steps is Engineer A ethically obligated to take, and how does the proportionality principle calibrate those steps relative to the full multi-authority campaign required in BER 00-5?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond his immediate supervisor — to higher OPQ Construction authority or directly to the state DOT — if the supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, and the sequencing and proportionality of that escalation relative to BER 00-5" ;
proeth:option1 "Escalate the unresolved hazard through higher authority within OPQ Construction, and if internal channels also fail to produce corrective action, notify the state DOT directly in writing — while simultaneously refusing to finalize or seal the scaffolding design until the hazard is formally addressed" ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the supervisor's non-response as a determination by OPQ Construction management that the hazard does not warrant project modification, document Engineer A's original notification in writing as a record of fulfilled duty, and proceed with completing the scaffolding design incorporating maximum feasible clearance buffers as an engineering accommodation — deferring further escalation unless a specific incident occurs" ;
proeth:option3 "Escalate internally within OPQ Construction to the next supervisory level, and if that level also fails to act, submit a written notification to the state DOT framed as a contractor safety concern through the project's formal communication channel — stopping short of direct law enforcement notification on the grounds that the hazard's probability and imminence do not yet meet the threshold that justified the full multi-authority campaign in BER 00-5" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T02:19:38.276975"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 140 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T02:19:38.276975
Generated by
ProEthica Case 140 Extraction