Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Engineer A On-Site Representative
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/89#Cost-Pressure_Safety_Recommendation_Abandonment_Prohibition_Engineer_A_On-Site_Representative
Properties
Instance of
Cost-PressureSafetyRecommendationAbandonmentProhibitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Cost-PressureSafetyRecommendationAbandonmentProhibitionObligation
Case context
Engineer A determined that a full-time on-site representative was necessary due to the dangerous nature of the construction phase, but when the client indicated the project would be too costly with such a representative, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.95
Importance
critical
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from abandoning the professionally grounded safety recommendation that a full-time on-site project representative was necessary, and from proceeding with the project when the client objected to this requirement on cost grounds.
Temporal scope
When the client raised cost objections to hiring the full-time on-site representative
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that Engineer A believed that to proceed, without an on-site project representative, would be potentially dangerous.
Text references
Engineer A, using best professional judgment, made a recommendation based upon what was believed to be consistent with that obligation. However, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project.
When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that Engineer A believed that to proceed, without an on-site project representative, would be potentially dangerous.
TTL
@prefix case89: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/89#> .
@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#> .
case89:Cost-Pressure_Safety_Recommendation_Abandonment_Prohibition_Engineer_A_On-Site_Representative a proeth:Cost-PressureSafetyRecommendationAbandonmentProhibitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Engineer A On-Site Representative" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case89:Public_Welfare_Paramount_Obligation_Engineer_A_Cost-Capitulation_Violation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case89:Client_Economic_Interest_Displacing_Engineer_Primary_Safety_Obligation ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A determined that a full-time on-site representative was necessary due to the dangerous nature of the construction phase, but when the client indicated the project would be too costly with such a representative, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case89:Engineer_Pressure_Resistance_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A_Yielding_to_Client_Cost_Objection,
case89:Professional_Judgment_Abandonment_Under_Cost_Pressure_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A ;
proeth:discoveredincase "89" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T18:16:06.891922+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "89" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T18:16:06.891922+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "critical" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to refrain from abandoning the professionally grounded safety recommendation that a full-time on-site project representative was necessary, and from proceeding with the project when the client objected to this requirement on cost grounds." ;
proeth:sourcetext "When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that Engineer A believed that to proceed, without an on-site project representative, would be potentially dangerous." ;
proeth:temporalscope "When the client raised cost objections to hiring the full-time on-site representative" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A, using best professional judgment, made a recommendation based upon what was believed to be consistent with that obligation. However, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project.",
"When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that Engineer A believed that to proceed, without an on-site project representative, would be potentially dangerous." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 89 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:38:27.072700"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 89 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
89
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T18:16:06.891922+00:00
First case
89
Generated
2026-03-01T18:16:06.891922+00:00
Attributed to
Case 89 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T18:38:27.072700
Generated by
ProEthica Case 89 Extraction