BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/149#BER_89-7_Structural_Engineer_Client_Safety_Violation_Insistence_or_Withdrawal
Properties
Instance of
ClientSafetyViolationInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ClientSafetyViolationInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalObligation
Case context
Client made clear building was being sold 'as is' with no planned remediation; engineer discovered code violations posing occupant injury risk; engineer failed to insist on remediation or withdraw.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
BER 89-7 Structural Engineer
Obligation statement
The BER 89-7 structural engineer was obligated to insist that the client take appropriate remedial action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than passively accepting the client's 'as is' sale posture.
Temporal scope
Upon learning of electrical and mechanical deficiencies that violated applicable codes and standards
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation in BER 89-7
Source Evidence
Source text
the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
Text references
the client made it clear to the engineer that the building was being sold 'as is' and the client was not planning to take any remedial action
the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.
TTL
@prefix case149: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/149#> .
@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#> .
case149:BER_89-7_Structural_Engineer_Client_Safety_Violation_Insistence_or_Withdrawal a proeth:ClientSafetyViolationInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case149:BER_89-7_Structural_Engineer_Confidentiality_Non-Override_Public_Safety_Reporting ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case149:BER_89-7_Structural_Engineer_Passive_Acquiescence_Safety_Violation_Non-Reporting ;
proeth:casecontext "Client made clear building was being sold 'as is' with no planned remediation; engineer discovered code violations posing occupant injury risk; engineer failed to insist on remediation or withdraw." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case149:Insistence_on_Client_Remedial_Action_or_Project_Withdrawal_Obligation_in_BER_89-7 ;
proeth:discoveredincase "149" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "149" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "BER 89-7 Structural Engineer" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The BER 89-7 structural engineer was obligated to insist that the client take appropriate remedial action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than passively accepting the client's 'as is' sale posture." ;
proeth:sourcetext "the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon learning of electrical and mechanical deficiencies that violated applicable codes and standards" ;
proeth:textreferences "the client made it clear to the engineer that the building was being sold 'as is' and the client was not planning to take any remedial action",
"the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 149 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:35:30.896537"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 149 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
149
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
First case
149
Generated
2026-03-01T12:26:51.749955+00:00
Attributed to
Case 149 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T12:35:30.896537
Generated by
ProEthica Case 149 Extraction