Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked for Engineer A Frozen Pipe Risk
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/59#Faithful_Agent_Notification_Obligation_Invoked_for_Engineer_A_Frozen_Pipe_Risk
Properties
Instance of
FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
Applied to
Frozen pipe risk to sprinkler system
Homeowner as client and owner
Retaining wall design engagement
Balancing with
Public Welfare Paramount
Scope limitation of contracted engagement
Concrete expression
Engineer A's faithful agent duty under NSPE Code Section I.4 and the project success obligation under Section III.1.b required Engineer A to advise the homeowner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes threatening the sprinkler system, even though this observation arose outside the contracted retaining wall scope
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Interpretation
The faithful agent relationship encompasses the client's overall project welfare; Engineer A's obligation to advise in writing arises from the faithful agent duty and the project success obligation, not solely from the public welfare paramount duty — and is bounded by a duty to notify but not to investigate or recommend mitigation
Invoked by
Engineer A Faithful Agent Property Inspection Engineer
Engineer A Multi-Credential Observing Engineer
Tension resolution
Faithful agent duty required written notification; the absence of a confidentiality obligation to the builder meant no competing duty constrained Engineer A's notification obligation
Source Evidence
Source text
The BER holds that Engineer A's duties under Sections 1.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful) require that Engineer A advise the Owner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes.
Text references
If Engineer A has a duty to intervene, it would arise either because of an imminent risk to public health, safety, and welfare or from duties associated with Sections I.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful).
In the present case, there is no duty of confidentiality to the builder that would place any obligations of Engineer A in tension.
The BER holds that Engineer A's duties under Sections 1.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful) require that Engineer A advise the Owner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes.
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 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:Faithful_Agent_Notification_Obligation_Invoked_for_Engineer_A_Frozen_Pipe_Risk a proeth:FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked for Engineer A Frozen Pipe Risk" ;
proeth:appliedto "Frozen pipe risk to sprinkler system",
"Homeowner as client and owner",
"Retaining wall design engagement" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Public Welfare Paramount",
"Scope limitation of contracted engagement" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's faithful agent duty under NSPE Code Section I.4 and the project success obligation under Section III.1.b required Engineer A to advise the homeowner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes threatening the sprinkler system, even though this observation arose outside the contracted retaining wall scope" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "59" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T22:31:41.475585+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "59" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T22:31:41.475585+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The faithful agent relationship encompasses the client's overall project welfare; Engineer A's obligation to advise in writing arises from the faithful agent duty and the project success obligation, not solely from the public welfare paramount duty — and is bounded by a duty to notify but not to investigate or recommend mitigation" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Faithful Agent Property Inspection Engineer",
"Engineer A Multi-Credential Observing Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:sourcetext "The BER holds that Engineer A's duties under Sections 1.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful) require that Engineer A advise the Owner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Faithful agent duty required written notification; the absence of a confidentiality obligation to the builder meant no competing duty constrained Engineer A's notification obligation" ;
proeth:textreferences "If Engineer A has a duty to intervene, it would arise either because of an imminent risk to public health, safety, and welfare or from duties associated with Sections I.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful).",
"In the present case, there is no duty of confidentiality to the builder that would place any obligations of Engineer A in tension.",
"The BER holds that Engineer A's duties under Sections 1.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful) require that Engineer A advise the Owner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 59 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T22:42:18.051753"^^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
2026-02-25T22:31:41.475585+00:00
First case
59
Generated
2026-02-25T22:31:41.475585+00:00
Attributed to
Case 59 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T22:42:18.051753
Generated by
ProEthica Case 59 Extraction