Going-Along Prohibition Engineer A Post-Client-Cost-Refusal Construction Phase
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/89#Going-Along_Prohibition_Engineer_A_Post-Client-Cost-Refusal_Construction_Phase
Properties
Instance of
Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation
Case context
After the client refused to hire the on-site representative on cost grounds, Engineer A proceeded with the work without forcing the issue, insisting on compliance, or withdrawing — constituting a 'going along' in violation of the paramount public welfare obligation.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.96
Importance
critical
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from 'going along' — proceeding with the construction project without dissent or comment — after the client refused to hire the full-time on-site project representative that Engineer A had identified as necessary for the dangerous construction phase.
Temporal scope
After the client's refusal to hire the full-time on-site representative and Engineer A's decision to proceed with the project
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Client Cost-Based Rejection of On-Site Safety Representative
derivedFromPrinciple
Going-Along Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A After Client Cost Refusal
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired.
Text references
Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired.
If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
Instead, Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment.
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:Going-Along_Prohibition_Engineer_A_Post-Client-Cost-Refusal_Construction_Phase a proeth:Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Going-Along Prohibition Engineer A Post-Client-Cost-Refusal Construction Phase" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case89:Client_Cost-Based_Rejection_of_On-Site_Safety_Representative ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case89:Engineer_A_Passive_Acquiescence_Independent_Ethical_Failure ;
proeth:casecontext "After the client refused to hire the on-site representative on cost grounds, Engineer A proceeded with the work without forcing the issue, insisting on compliance, or withdrawing — constituting a 'going along' in violation of the paramount public welfare obligation." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.96" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case89:Going-Along_Prohibition_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A_After_Client_Cost_Refusal ;
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 "Going-Along Prohibition After Client Safety Refusal Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to refrain from 'going along' — proceeding with the construction project without dissent or comment — after the client refused to hire the full-time on-site project representative that Engineer A had identified as necessary for the dangerous construction phase." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired." ;
proeth:temporalscope "After the client's refusal to hire the full-time on-site representative and Engineer A's decision to proceed with the project" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired.",
"If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.",
"Instead, Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 89 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:38:27.072859"^^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
2026-03-01T18:38:27.072859
Generated by
ProEthica Case 89 Extraction