Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony Invoked By Structural Engineer Building Inspection
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/18#Completeness_in_Responsive_Technical_Testimony_Invoked_By_Structural_Engineer_Building_Inspection
Properties
Instance of
CompletenessinResponsiveTechnicalTestimony
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CompletenessinResponsiveTechnicalTestimony
Applied to
Building sale inspection report
Mechanical and electrical code violations
Balancing with
Confidentiality
Professional Scope and Interdisciplinary Boundary Respect
Concrete expression
The structural engineer who inspected the building prior to sale made only brief mention of mechanical and electrical code violations in the project report, rather than fully reporting them to appropriate authorities, which the BER concluded was insufficient to discharge the reporting obligation
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Interpretation
Completeness requires the structural engineer to do more than make brief mention of known safety violations — the engineer must report them to appropriate authorities even when the violations fall outside the engineer's primary area of licensure
Invoked by
Structural Engineer Building Sale Inspector
Tension resolution
The duty to report safety violations to appropriate authorities overrides the confidentiality of the owner's disclosure and the engineer's limited scope of licensure; BER Case 89-7 concluded the engineer had a duty to report
Source Evidence
Source text
The BER concluded that the engineer had a duty to report the potential code violations to the appropriate authority.
Text references
The BER concluded that the engineer had a duty to report the potential code violations to the appropriate authority.
The structural engineer made only brief mention of the potential mechanical and electrical violations in the project report, and did not report the potential violations to any third party.
the structural engineer inspected a building that was about to be sold, and was apprised confidentially by the owner that, although the building was structurally sound, there were mechanical and electrical code violations that had not been addressed
TTL
@prefix case18: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/18#> .
@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#> .
case18:Completeness_in_Responsive_Technical_Testimony_Invoked_By_Structural_Engineer_Building_Inspection a proeth:CompletenessinResponsiveTechnicalTestimony,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony Invoked By Structural Engineer Building Inspection" ;
proeth:appliedto "Building sale inspection report",
"Mechanical and electrical code violations" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Confidentiality",
"Professional Scope and Interdisciplinary Boundary Respect" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The structural engineer who inspected the building prior to sale made only brief mention of mechanical and electrical code violations in the project report, rather than fully reporting them to appropriate authorities, which the BER concluded was insufficient to discharge the reporting obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "18" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T15:15:37.334010+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "18" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T15:15:37.334010+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Completeness requires the structural engineer to do more than make brief mention of known safety violations — the engineer must report them to appropriate authorities even when the violations fall outside the engineer's primary area of licensure" ;
proeth:invokedby "Structural Engineer Building Sale Inspector" ;
proeth:principleclass "Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony" ;
proeth:sourcetext "The BER concluded that the engineer had a duty to report the potential code violations to the appropriate authority." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The duty to report safety violations to appropriate authorities overrides the confidentiality of the owner's disclosure and the engineer's limited scope of licensure; BER Case 89-7 concluded the engineer had a duty to report" ;
proeth:textreferences "The BER concluded that the engineer had a duty to report the potential code violations to the appropriate authority.",
"The structural engineer made only brief mention of the potential mechanical and electrical violations in the project report, and did not report the potential violations to any third party.",
"the structural engineer inspected a building that was about to be sold, and was apprised confidentially by the owner that, although the building was structurally sound, there were mechanical and electrical code violations that had not been addressed" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 18 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T15:25:32.291164"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 18 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
18
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-25T15:15:37.334010+00:00
First case
18
Generated
2026-02-25T15:15:37.334010+00:00
Attributed to
Case 18 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T15:25:32.291164
Generated by
ProEthica Case 18 Extraction