BER Case 76-4 Engineer Client Report Suppression Resistance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/59#BER_Case_76-4_Engineer_Client_Report_Suppression_Resistance
Properties
Instance of
ClientReportSuppressionResistanceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ClientReportSuppressionResistanceObligation
Case context
Engineer was hired to confirm discharge effects on water quality, verbally advised client that standards would not be met, was instructed not to file a written report, was paid, and had the contract terminated. The client subsequently appeared at a public hearing with data purporting to show compliance. The BER held that public health, safety, and welfare obligations pre-empted the client relationship and required reporting.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer (BER Case 76-4)
Obligation statement
The engineer in BER Case 76-4 was obligated to resist the client's instruction not to file a written report of water quality findings below regulatory standards, and to ensure that public authorities had accurate information about the discharge's effect on water quality, notwithstanding the client's payment of fees and termination of the contract.
Temporal scope
Upon client instruction to suppress the written report and upon learning that client presented misleading data at a public hearing
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
BER Case 76-4 Client Suppression of Water Quality Report
derivedFromPrinciple
Client Report Suppression Prohibition Invoked in BER Case 76-4
Source Evidence
Source text
Client instructs Engineers not to file a written report, pays Engineer, and terminates the contract.
Text references
Client instructs Engineers not to file a written report, pays Engineer, and terminates the contract.
Engineer learns that Client appeared at a public hearing with data showing compliance.
Public health, safety, and welfare are the paramount concern of every engineer and pre-empt any obligation to clients.
There is a clear risk to public health, safety, and welfare with a consequent clear duty to report.
TTL
@prefix case59: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/59#> .
@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#> .
case59:BER_Case_76-4_Engineer_Client_Report_Suppression_Resistance a proeth:ClientReportSuppressionResistanceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER Case 76-4 Engineer Client Report Suppression Resistance" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case59:Faithful_Agent_Scope_Boundary_Engineer_A_Retaining_Wall_Engagement ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case59:BER_Case_76-4_Client_Suppression_of_Water_Quality_Report ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case59:Faithful_Agent_Scope_Boundary_Engineer_A_Retaining_Wall_Engagement ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer was hired to confirm discharge effects on water quality, verbally advised client that standards would not be met, was instructed not to file a written report, was paid, and had the contract terminated. The client subsequently appeared at a public hearing with data purporting to show compliance. The BER held that public health, safety, and welfare obligations pre-empted the client relationship and required reporting." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case59:Client_Report_Suppression_Prohibition_Invoked_in_BER_Case_76-4 ;
proeth:discoveredincase "59" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T22:33:26.882360+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "59" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T22:33:26.882360+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer (BER Case 76-4)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Client Report Suppression Resistance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The engineer in BER Case 76-4 was obligated to resist the client's instruction not to file a written report of water quality findings below regulatory standards, and to ensure that public authorities had accurate information about the discharge's effect on water quality, notwithstanding the client's payment of fees and termination of the contract." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Client instructs Engineers not to file a written report, pays Engineer, and terminates the contract." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon client instruction to suppress the written report and upon learning that client presented misleading data at a public hearing" ;
proeth:textreferences "Client instructs Engineers not to file a written report, pays Engineer, and terminates the contract.",
"Engineer learns that Client appeared at a public hearing with data showing compliance.",
"Public health, safety, and welfare are the paramount concern of every engineer and pre-empt any obligation to clients.",
"There is a clear risk to public health, safety, and welfare with a consequent clear duty to report." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 59 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T22:42:18.052789"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 59 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
59
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-25T22:33:26.882360+00:00
First case
59
Generated
2026-02-25T22:33:26.882360+00:00
Attributed to
Case 59 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T22:42:18.052789
Generated by
ProEthica Case 59 Extraction