Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 79-7 (1979) · Review of Original Engineer's Design

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 2: Objectivity of Engineer B Report and Professional Dignity...
Given that Engineer B's sizing inadequacy finding was genuine and no injurious intent was shown, the board concluded that Engineer A's reputational harm was an incidental and permissible byproduct of truthful reporting rather than an ethical violation, because dignity protections are reserved for malicious or reckless criticism, not accurate technical findings.
specification
Analytical conclusion 5: In response to Q201 and Q204, any tension between Peer Re...
Given that Engineer A's engagement had concluded years before Engineer B's plumbing and heating study, the Board concluded that the termination condition of the peer review cooperation duty was satisfied, permitting and obligating Engineer B to report safety-related deficiencies fully to the owner despite not separately consulting Engineer A.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 79-7:
  • Engineer B was not unethical in taking the assignment and in rendering the report to the owner.
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