Engineer R Independent Reviewer Impaired Practice Reporting Obligation Instance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/16#Engineer_R_Independent_Reviewer_Impaired_Practice_Reporting_Obligation_Instance
Properties
Instance of
IndependentReviewerReportingObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#IndependentReviewerReportingObligation
Case context
Engineer R, retained by Engineer A to independently review the structural drawings and failed basement structure, discovered a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details attributable to Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement. Engineer R was subsequently informed of Engineer B's stroke and the arrangement with Engineer Intern C.
Compliance status
unclear
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer R
Obligation statement
Engineer R was obligated to report Engineer B's impaired and unlawful engineering practice to the State Board upon discovering the serious structural design errors and learning of Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement, unless Engineer A's report to the Board was styled to note Engineer R's concurrence.
Temporal scope
Upon completion of Engineer R's independent review and upon learning of Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer R Third-Party Discovery Reporting Obligation
Source Evidence
Source text
Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence. Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f).
Text references
Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.
Given his direct knowledge of the situation, Engineer R, like Engineer A, was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.
Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence. Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f).
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-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#> .
case16:Engineer_R_Independent_Reviewer_Impaired_Practice_Reporting_Obligation_Instance a proeth:IndependentReviewerReportingObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer R Independent Reviewer Impaired Practice Reporting Obligation Instance" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case16:Engineer_R_Third-Party_Discovery_Reporting_Obligation ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer R, retained by Engineer A to independently review the structural drawings and failed basement structure, discovered a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details attributable to Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement. Engineer R was subsequently informed of Engineer B's stroke and the arrangement with Engineer Intern C." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unclear" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "16" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "16" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer R" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Independent Reviewer Reporting Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer R was obligated to report Engineer B's impaired and unlawful engineering practice to the State Board upon discovering the serious structural design errors and learning of Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement, unless Engineer A's report to the Board was styled to note Engineer R's concurrence." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence. Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f)." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon completion of Engineer R's independent review and upon learning of Engineer B's impaired practice arrangement" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet.",
"Given his direct knowledge of the situation, Engineer R, like Engineer A, was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.",
"Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence. Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f)." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 16 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T12:12:21.729584"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 16 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
16
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
First case
16
Generated
2026-02-25T12:02:21.309464+00:00
Attributed to
Case 16 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T12:12:21.729584
Generated by
ProEthica Case 16 Extraction