Engineer A has fulfilled his ethical obligation by taking prudent action in notifying the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction. However, Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency.

This case presents among one of the classic ethical dilemmas faced by professional engineers in their professional practice. Engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation reaches in seeking corrective action. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma on several occasions and each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved. There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases. An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5. There, Engineer A was an engineer with a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge 280 feet long and 30 feet above the stream. This bridge was a concrete deck on wood piles built in the 1950s by the state. It was part of the secondary roadway system given to the counties many years ago. In June 2000, Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating this bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten piling. Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon. Residents in the area were required to take a 10-mile detour. On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river, and the “Bridge Closed” sign was found beyond the trees by the roadway. More permanent barricades and signs were installed. The press published photos of some of the piles that did not reach the ground and the myriad of patchwork over the years. Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement. Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced. Several departments in the state and federal transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks be...

Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property. Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones. Later, Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof. The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued. Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads. Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.

Has Engineer A fulfilled his ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics?

II.1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. II.1.f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.