Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 95-5 (1995) · Failure To Include Information In Engineering Report

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.

dissolution
Analytical conclusion 2: Complete Reporting in Test Pile Report and Complete Repor...
Given that Engineer B treated client loyalty as loyalty to the municipality's litigation goals, the board concluded that the apparent conflict between completeness and loyalty was illusory, because properly construed Code-based client service requires disclosing unfavorable facts like the equipment failure and refusal data so the client can act on a full...
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 95-5:
  • It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning the failed operation of the testing equipment.
  • It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with any representative of Engineer A about the project.
  • It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction.
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