DP4
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/16#DP4
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP4
Decision question
Upon noticing questionable structural details in Engineer B's work and knowing of Engineer B's post-stroke condition, should Engineer A independently verify Engineer B's current competence before the structural failure occurs, or defer to the friendship relationship and Engineer B's continued licensure as sufficient assurance of competence?
Focus
Engineer A, as the retaining client who selected Engineer B as structural consultant, had prior awareness that Engineer B had suffered a stroke and noticed 'odd' structural bracing and other questionable structural details in Engineer B's work before the basement failure occurred. Engineer A must decide whether his pre-failure observations trigger an independent obligation to verify Engineer B's current competence.
Option1
Independently verify Engineer B's current competence and capacity by commissioning a review of structural work upon noticing questionable details, before any structural failure occurs
Option2
Retain Engineer B without independent competence verification, relying on longstanding friendship and continued licensure as sufficient basis for confidence in Engineer B's work
Option3
Raise concerns about the questionable structural details directly with Engineer B and require written confirmation of design rationale before allowing construction to proceed
Role
Engineer A — Retaining Client Engineer with Pre-Failure Knowledge of Questionable Details
TTL
@prefix case16: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/16#> .
@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#> .
case16:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Upon noticing questionable structural details in Engineer B's work and knowing of Engineer B's post-stroke condition, should Engineer A independently verify Engineer B's current competence before the structural failure occurs, or defer to the friendship relationship and Engineer B's continued licensure as sufficient assurance of competence?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A, as the retaining client who selected Engineer B as structural consultant, had prior awareness that Engineer B had suffered a stroke and noticed 'odd' structural bracing and other questionable structural details in Engineer B's work before the basement failure occurred. Engineer A must decide whether his pre-failure observations trigger an independent obligation to verify Engineer B's current competence." ;
proeth:option1 "Independently verify Engineer B's current competence and capacity by commissioning a review of structural work upon noticing questionable details, before any structural failure occurs" ;
proeth:option2 "Retain Engineer B without independent competence verification, relying on longstanding friendship and continued licensure as sufficient basis for confidence in Engineer B's work" ;
proeth:option3 "Raise concerns about the questionable structural details directly with Engineer B and require written confirmation of design rationale before allowing construction to proceed" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A — Retaining Client Engineer with Pre-Failure Knowledge of Questionable Details" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T12:12:22.705329"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 16 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-25T12:12:22.705329
Generated by
ProEthica Case 16 Extraction