Cross-Firm Honest Safety Disagreement Impartial Referral Recommendation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#Cross-Firm_Honest_Safety_Disagreement_Impartial_Referral_Recommendation
Properties
Instance of
Cross-FirmHonestSafetyDisagreementImpartialExpertReferralObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Cross-FirmHonestSafetyDisagreementImpartialExpertReferralObligation
Case context
The BER identified an apparent honest difference of opinion between Company A engineers (asserting design adequacy) and Company B engineers (identifying miscalculations and deficiencies), and recommended referral to an impartial technical body as the appropriate resolution mechanism.
Compliance status
unclear
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Obligated party
Company A and Company B (both firms)
Obligation statement
Where Company A engineers and Company B engineers reached an honest, irreconcilable disagreement about the safety of the machinery design, both parties were obligated to refer the dispute to an impartial body of experts — such as a technical engineering society in the relevant field — for an independent determination, rather than allowing Company A's unilateral assertion of adequacy to govern production decisions.
Temporal scope
Upon determination that the technical safety disagreement was irreconcilable between the two firms' engineers
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Honest Disagreement Permissibility and Impartial Referral Mechanism
Source Evidence
Source text
Where, as in this case, there is an apparent honest difference of opinion as to the safety features of the machinery between the engineers of Company 'A' and the engineers of Company 'B' it would be appropriate for the question to be referred to an impartial body of experts, such as a technical engineering society in the particular field of practice, for an independent determination
Text references
Where, as in this case, there is an apparent honest difference of opinion as to the safety features of the machinery between the engineers of Company 'A' and the engineers of Company 'B' it would be appropriate for the question to be referred to an impartial body of experts, such as a technical engineering society in the particular field of practice, for an independent determination
TTL
@prefix case160: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#> .
@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#> .
case160:Cross-Firm_Honest_Safety_Disagreement_Impartial_Referral_Recommendation a proeth:Cross-FirmHonestSafetyDisagreementImpartialExpertReferralObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Cross-Firm Honest Safety Disagreement Impartial Referral Recommendation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case160:Company_A_Engineers_Objective_Review_of_External_Safety_Notification ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case160:Inter-Firm_Honest_Safety_Disagreement_Impartial_Referral_Available ;
proeth:casecontext "The BER identified an apparent honest difference of opinion between Company A engineers (asserting design adequacy) and Company B engineers (identifying miscalculations and deficiencies), and recommended referral to an impartial technical body as the appropriate resolution mechanism." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unclear" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case160:Honest_Disagreement_Permissibility_and_Impartial_Referral_Mechanism ;
proeth:discoveredincase "160" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:42:46.371997+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "160" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:42:46.371997+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Company A and Company B (both firms)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Cross-Firm Honest Safety Disagreement Impartial Expert Referral Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Where Company A engineers and Company B engineers reached an honest, irreconcilable disagreement about the safety of the machinery design, both parties were obligated to refer the dispute to an impartial body of experts — such as a technical engineering society in the relevant field — for an independent determination, rather than allowing Company A's unilateral assertion of adequacy to govern production decisions." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Where, as in this case, there is an apparent honest difference of opinion as to the safety features of the machinery between the engineers of Company 'A' and the engineers of Company 'B' it would be appropriate for the question to be referred to an impartial body of experts, such as a technical engineering society in the particular field of practice, for an independent determination" ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon determination that the technical safety disagreement was irreconcilable between the two firms' engineers" ;
proeth:textreferences "Where, as in this case, there is an apparent honest difference of opinion as to the safety features of the machinery between the engineers of Company 'A' and the engineers of Company 'B' it would be appropriate for the question to be referred to an impartial body of experts, such as a technical engineering society in the particular field of practice, for an independent determination" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 160 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:53:01.003357"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 160 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
160
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:42:46.371997+00:00
First case
160
Generated
2026-03-02T14:42:46.371997+00:00
Attributed to
Case 160 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:53:01.003357
Generated by
ProEthica Case 160 Extraction