Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 86-4 (1986) · Modification of Signed and Sealed Plans by Other Than Responsible Engineer

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 1: The Board resolved the tension between Peer Review Withou...
Because Engineer B's freedom to accept the assignment without contacting Engineer A concerned only the acceptance stage, the Board concluded that this permission could not excuse the separate and non-negotiable duty to attribute the changes once the redesign work was actually performed.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 86-4:
  • Engineer B was not unethical in performing services for the client without first notifying Engineer A.
  • Engineer B was unethical in making changes on specific sheets of a set of drawings without clearly indicating those changes.
  • Engineer B was unethical in failing to note his assumption of full responsibility for the entire set of drawings.
Recorded violations: Undocumented Grading Plan Modification violates Engineer B Change Notation Duty Undocumented Utility Design Changes violates Engineer B Change Notation Duty Undocumented Grading Plan Modification violates Engineer B Full Design Responsibility Duty Vague Responsibility Notation violates Engineer B Full Design Responsibility Duty Undocumented Utility Design Changes violates Engineer B Full Design Responsibility Duty Vague Responsibility Notation violates Engineer B Change Notation 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