Engineer B Litigation Expert
R · Role
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#Engineer_B_Litigation_Expert
Definition
Retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and produce a findings report on whether the original 90 piles met design safety factor requirements. Concluded that 19 piles were deficient but omitted material facts including pile refusal data, wave equation results, and equipment failure from the report. Did not consult Engineer A's representatives or field personnel.
Retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and produce a findings report on whether the original 90 piles met design safety factor requirements. Concluded that 19 piles were deficient but omitted material facts including pile refusal data, wave equation results, and equipment failure from the report. Did not consult Engineer A's representatives or field personnel.
Properties
Instance of
Actor
Engineer B
Confidence
0.91
Has License
Professional Engineer
Has Specialty
Geotechnical or foundation engineering
Role category
provider_client
Match Confidence
0.0
Matches Existing
false
Synthesis Literal
caseInvolvement
confidence
roleCategory
roleClass
textReferences
Relationships
adheresToPrinciple
Engineer B Client Service Disservice, Engineer B Complete Reporting Failure, Engineer B Faithful Agent Limits in Litigation, Engineer B Intellectual Honesty in Expert Report, Engineer B Investigative Completeness Failure, Engineer B Investigative Diligence Failure, Engineer B Litigation Neutrality Breach, Engineer B Litigation Neutrality Violation, Engineer B Methodological Consistency Failure, Engineer B Methodological Disclosure Failure, Engineer B Objective Completeness Violation, Engineer B Objectivity Failure in Expert Role, Engineer B Scope Limitation Non-Disclosure, Engineer B Technical Objectivity Violation
hasObligation
Engineer B Adversarial Data Selection, Engineer B Complete Technical Reporting, Engineer B Contradictory Evidence Disclosure, Engineer B Expert Witness Neutrality, Engineer B Fact Gathering Diligence, Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary, Engineer B Investigative Completeness, Engineer B Methodological Consistency, Engineer B Scope Limitation Disclosure, Engineer B Scope Limitation Non-Disclosure Obligation
Source Evidence
Text references
At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A
Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed
Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations
the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
Source text
the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
TTL
@prefix case71: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#> .
@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 proeth-prov: <http://proethica.org/provenance#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case71:Engineer_B_Litigation_Expert a proeth:LitigationExpertEngineer,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Litigation Expert" ;
proeth-core:adheresToPrinciple case71:Engineer_B_Client_Service_Disservice,
case71:Engineer_B_Complete_Reporting_Failure,
case71:Engineer_B_Faithful_Agent_Limits_in_Litigation,
case71:Engineer_B_Intellectual_Honesty_in_Expert_Report,
case71:Engineer_B_Investigative_Completeness_Failure,
case71:Engineer_B_Investigative_Diligence_Failure,
case71:Engineer_B_Litigation_Neutrality_Breach,
case71:Engineer_B_Litigation_Neutrality_Violation,
case71:Engineer_B_Methodological_Consistency_Failure,
case71:Engineer_B_Methodological_Disclosure_Failure,
case71:Engineer_B_Objective_Completeness_Violation,
case71:Engineer_B_Objectivity_Failure_in_Expert_Role,
case71:Engineer_B_Scope_Limitation_Non-Disclosure,
case71:Engineer_B_Technical_Objectivity_Violation ;
proeth-core:hasObligation case71:Engineer_B_Adversarial_Data_Selection,
case71:Engineer_B_Complete_Technical_Reporting,
case71:Engineer_B_Contradictory_Evidence_Disclosure,
case71:Engineer_B_Expert_Witness_Neutrality,
case71:Engineer_B_Fact_Gathering_Diligence,
case71:Engineer_B_Faithful_Agent_Boundary,
case71:Engineer_B_Investigative_Completeness,
case71:Engineer_B_Methodological_Consistency,
case71:Engineer_B_Scope_Limitation_Disclosure,
case71:Engineer_B_Scope_Limitation_Non-Disclosure_Obligation ;
proeth:actor "Engineer B" ;
proeth:caseInvolvement "Retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and produce a findings report on whether the original 90 piles met design safety factor requirements. Concluded that 19 piles were deficient but omitted material facts including pile refusal data, wave equation results, and equipment failure from the report. Did not consult Engineer A's representatives or field personnel." ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:hasLicense "Professional Engineer" ;
proeth:hasSpecialty "Geotechnical or foundation engineering" ;
proeth:roleCategory "provider_client" ;
proeth:roleClass "Litigation Expert Engineer" ;
proeth:textReferences "At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A",
"Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed",
"Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal",
"Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations",
"the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles" ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 71 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 1 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "facts" ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-04T14:26:11.026228+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 71 ;
proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.0 ;
proeth-prov:matchesExisting false ;
proeth-prov:sourceText "the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles" ;
proeth-prov:synthesisLiteral "caseInvolvement",
"confidence",
"roleCategory",
"roleClass",
"textReferences" ;
rdfs:comment "Retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and produce a findings report on whether the original 90 piles met design safety factor requirements. Concluded that 19 piles were deficient but omitted material facts including pile refusal data, wave equation results, and equipment failure from the report. Did not consult Engineer A's representatives or field personnel." ;
skos:definition "Retained by the municipality to supervise test pile driving and produce a findings report on whether the original 90 piles met design safety factor requirements. Concluded that 19 piles were deficient but omitted material facts including pile refusal data, wave equation results, and equipment failure from the report. Did not consult Engineer A's representatives or field personnel." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-04T14:26:11.026228+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 71 Extraction",
"claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 71 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
71
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-06-04T14:26:11.026228+00:00
First case
71
Generated
2026-06-04T14:26:11.026228+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 71 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']
Generated by
ProEthica Case 71 Extraction