Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 22-7 (2022) · Impaired Engineering

Case Precedents
How this case resolved it

No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.

Resolved without defeat

The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.

specification
Analytical conclusion 3: Q104: Engineer A's initial response to the 'odd' bracing—...
Given that Engineer A's initial suspicion concerned only a technical anomaly and the broader facts about impairment and unlawful sealing surfaced only later, the board treated retaining Engineer R as reasonable diligence for the defect itself, while holding that this could not substitute for the distinct reporting obligation triggered once the full...
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 22-7:
  • It was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.
  • It was unethical for Engineer B to continue work in an impaired state in which he could not competently perform engineering design, could not guide and direct his subordinates, or properly review their designs or drawings.
  • Engineer Intern C’s complicity in helping Engineer B to continue work was unethical.
Recorded violations: Reporting Omission violates Engineer A State Board Reporting Duty Continued Practice While Impaired violates Engineer B Licensure Conformance Duty Delegation and Unreviewed Sealing violates Engineer B Sealed Drawing Review Duty Reporting Omission violates Engineer Intern C Reporting Duty Reporting Omission violates Engineer Intern C Licensure Conformance Duty Reporting Omission violates Engineer A Violation Reporting Duty Complicit Cooperation violates Engineer Intern C Licensure Conformance Duty Delegation and Unreviewed Sealing violates Engineer B Licensure Conformance Duty
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3