BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Safety Violation Non-Reporting
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/149#BER_89-7_Structural_Engineer_Passive_Acquiescence_Safety_Violation_Non-Reporting
Properties
Instance of
PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation
Case context
Engineer retained under confidentiality agreement to assess 60-year-old occupied apartment building; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; engineer made brief mention in confidential report but did not report to public authorities or insist on remediation.
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 actively insist that the client take corrective action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or withdraw from the project, rather than passively noting the deficiencies in a confidential report without further action.
Temporal scope
Upon receiving client's disclosure of electrical and mechanical deficiencies during the course of professional services
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
BER 89-7 Out-of-Scope Code Violation in Occupied Building Sale
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
in his report, the engineer made a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties.
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 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_Passive_Acquiescence_Safety_Violation_Non-Reporting a proeth:PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER 89-7 Structural Engineer Passive Acquiescence Safety Violation Non-Reporting" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case149:BER_89-7_Structural_Engineer_Public_Authority_Safety_Reporting ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case149:BER_89-7_Out-of-Scope_Code_Violation_in_Occupied_Building_Sale ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer retained under confidentiality agreement to assess 60-year-old occupied apartment building; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; engineer made brief mention in confidential report but did not report to public authorities or insist on remediation." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case149:Passive_Acquiescence_After_Safety_Notification_as_Independent_Ethical_Failure_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 "Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The BER 89-7 structural engineer was obligated to actively insist that the client take corrective action regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations, or withdraw from the project, rather than passively noting the deficiencies in a confidential report without further action." ;
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 "Upon receiving client's disclosure of electrical and mechanical deficiencies during the course of professional services" ;
proeth:textreferences "in his report, the engineer made a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, the engineer did not report the safety violations to any third parties.",
"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 149 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:35:30.896377"^^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
2026-03-01T12:35:30.896377
Generated by
ProEthica Case 149 Extraction