Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Analogous Violation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#Case_84-5_Engineer_Going-Along_Without_Dissent_Analogous_Violation
Properties
Instance of
Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation
Case context
Case 84-5 engineer recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction phase; client refused on cost grounds; engineer proceeded without insisting or withdrawing — conduct the Board found unethical and applied analogously to Engineer A's situation.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.85
Importance
medium
Obligated party
Engineer (Case 84-5)
Obligation statement
The engineer in Case 84-5 was obligated to insist that the client hire a full-time on-site project representative for the dangerous construction phase or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than 'going along' without dissent or comment after the client refused to hire the representative on cost grounds.
Temporal scope
After client's refusal to hire on-site project representative on cost grounds
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
Text references
If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
TTL
@prefix case84: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#> .
@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#> .
case84:Case_84-5_Engineer_Going-Along_Without_Dissent_Analogous_Violation a proeth:Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Analogous Violation" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case84:Engineer_A_Client_Cost-Driven_Safety_Oversight_Rejection_Case_84-5_Analogy ;
proeth:casecontext "Case 84-5 engineer recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction phase; client refused on cost grounds; engineer proceeded without insisting or withdrawing — conduct the Board found unethical and applied analogously to Engineer A's situation." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#Passive_Acquiescence_Ethical_Failure_—_Engineer_A_Going_Along_After_Client_Safety_Refusal> ;
proeth:discoveredincase "84" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "84" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer (Case 84-5)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Going-Along Prohibition After Client Safety Refusal Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The engineer in Case 84-5 was obligated to insist that the client hire a full-time on-site project representative for the dangerous construction phase or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than 'going along' without dissent or comment after the client refused to hire the representative on cost grounds." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment." ;
proeth:temporalscope "After client's refusal to hire on-site project representative on cost grounds" ;
proeth:textreferences "If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.",
"The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 84 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T13:56:58.177241"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 84 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
84
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
First case
84
Generated
2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
Attributed to
Case 84 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T13:56:58.177241
Generated by
ProEthica Case 84 Extraction