Do No Harm Obligation Applied to Company A Design Engineers
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#Do_No_Harm_Obligation_Applied_to_Company_A_Design_Engineers
Properties
Instance of
DoNoHarmObligationinProfessionalEngineeringServices
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#DoNoHarmObligationinProfessionalEngineeringServices
Applied to
Preparation and defense of deficient plans and specifications for life-safety-critical machinery
Balancing with
Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
Concrete expression
Company A engineers, having prepared plans and specifications containing miscalculations and technical deficiencies that could endanger lives, and then dismissing Company B engineers' safety concerns without independent review, failed their obligation to minimize negative consequences of their engineering decisions on third-party users and bystanders.
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Interpretation
The do no harm obligation extends beyond the initial design act to the response to identified safety concerns; dismissing safety objections without independent review perpetuates the potential harm and compounds the original design failure.
Invoked by
Company A Engineers Deficient Machinery Designers
Company A Officials Safety-Concern-Dismissing Authority
Tension resolution
Honest disagreement does not excuse dismissing safety concerns without independent review when the consequence of being wrong is life endangerment; do no harm requires at minimum engaging seriously with the identified deficiencies.
Source Evidence
Source text
Company 'A' replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company 'B' should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified.
Text references
Company 'A' replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company 'B' should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified.
the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it
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 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:Do_No_Harm_Obligation_Applied_to_Company_A_Design_Engineers a proeth:DoNoHarmObligationinProfessionalEngineeringServices,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Do No Harm Obligation Applied to Company A Design Engineers" ;
proeth:appliedto "Preparation and defense of deficient plans and specifications for life-safety-critical machinery" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Company A engineers, having prepared plans and specifications containing miscalculations and technical deficiencies that could endanger lives, and then dismissing Company B engineers' safety concerns without independent review, failed their obligation to minimize negative consequences of their engineering decisions on third-party users and bystanders." ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "160" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:30:10.564580+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "160" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:30:10.564580+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The do no harm obligation extends beyond the initial design act to the response to identified safety concerns; dismissing safety objections without independent review perpetuates the potential harm and compounds the original design failure." ;
proeth:invokedby "Company A Engineers Deficient Machinery Designers",
"Company A Officials Safety-Concern-Dismissing Authority" ;
proeth:principleclass "Do No Harm Obligation in Professional Engineering Services" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Company 'A' replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company 'B' should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Honest disagreement does not excuse dismissing safety concerns without independent review when the consequence of being wrong is life endangerment; do no harm requires at minimum engaging seriously with the identified deficiencies." ;
proeth:textreferences "Company 'A' replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company 'B' should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified.",
"the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 160 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:53:00.994153"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 160 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
160
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:30:10.564580+00:00
First case
160
Generated
2026-03-02T14:30:10.564580+00:00
Attributed to
Case 160 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:53:00.994153
Generated by
ProEthica Case 160 Extraction