Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B Refusal
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#Non-Acquiescence_to_Client_Directive_Suppressing_Safety_Analysis_Invoked_Against_Client_B_Refusal
Properties
Instance of
Non-AcquiescencetoClientDirectiveSuppressingSafetyAnalysis
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Non-AcquiescencetoClientDirectiveSuppressingSafetyAnalysis
Applied to
Client B's cost-based refusal to authorize specialized analysis
Upstream flood risk to twenty homes
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis when Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material flood risks to the upstream residential community
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Interpretation
Client B's cost management rationale does not override Engineer A's professional obligation to ensure that safety-relevant analysis is performed when the engineer's judgment indicates it is necessary to protect third-party welfare
Invoked by
Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
Tension resolution
The client's authority to direct the scope of the engineering engagement does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant analysis that the engineer's professional judgment identifies as necessary
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
Text references
Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
TTL
@prefix case88: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#> .
@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#> .
case88:Non-Acquiescence_to_Client_Directive_Suppressing_Safety_Analysis_Invoked_Against_Client_B_Refusal a proeth:Non-AcquiescencetoClientDirectiveSuppressingSafetyAnalysis,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B Refusal" ;
proeth:appliedto "Client B's cost-based refusal to authorize specialized analysis",
"Upstream flood risk to twenty homes" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis when Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material flood risks to the upstream residential community" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "88" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "88" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Client B's cost management rationale does not override Engineer A's professional obligation to ensure that safety-relevant analysis is performed when the engineer's judgment indicates it is necessary to protect third-party welfare" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The client's authority to direct the scope of the engineering engagement does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant analysis that the engineer's professional judgment identifies as necessary" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.",
"Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 88 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-26T00:31:11.070940"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 88 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
88
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
First case
88
Generated
2026-02-26T00:19:27.254437+00:00
Attributed to
Case 88 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-26T00:31:11.070940
Generated by
ProEthica Case 88 Extraction