Engineer A Going-Along After Client Safety Refusal Independent Ethical Violation

@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:Engineer_A_Going-Along_After_Client_Safety_Refusal_Independent_Ethical_Violation a proeth:Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Going-Along After Client Safety Refusal Independent Ethical Violation" ; proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case84:Engineer_A_Passive_Acquiescence_to_Client_Safety_Refusal ; proeth-core:prevailsOver case84:Engineer_A_Section_III.4_Client-Transmitted_Confidentiality_Engagement_Recognition ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A, after informing the client of electrical and mechanical deficiencies and being told the building would be sold 'as is,' made only a brief mention in his structural report and proceeded passively with the engagement — mirroring the conduct condemned in Case 84-5." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; 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 "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Going-Along Prohibition After Client Safety Refusal Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A violated the prohibition on 'going along' by proceeding with the structural assessment engagement without dissent, comment, or escalation after the client refused to remediate known electrical and mechanical code violations and declared the building would be sold 'as is,' constituting an independent ethical failure separate from any failure to report." ; 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 remediate and throughout completion of the structural assessment engagement" ; 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.", "Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.", "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 "2026-03-01T13:56:58.176323"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 84 Extraction" .