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: Transparency in Advising MWC of Project Failure (III.1.b)...
Because the engineers actually informed MWC of the project's likely failure before the MWC's override occurred, the board characterized III.1.b and II.1.a as a duty ladder, informing the client first and escalating to the regulator only once that internal warning was rejected, rather than as a forced choice between candor and public protection.
specification
Analytical conclusion 9: On Q403, had the MWC accepted the engineers' recommendati...
Since the board anchored the external reporting duty specifically to the act of the client overruling safety-driven engineering judgment, it concluded that had MWC accepted the delay recommendation instead, that triggering event would be absent and only the routine duty to advise the client would remain.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 20-4:
- In fulfillment of their ethical obligations under the Code, Engineers A and B should formally communicate their concerns to the MWC, including that they believe the project will not be successful.
- Both Engineers A and B have ethical obligations to notify the MWC and other appropriate authorities that prematurely changing the water source puts the public health and safety at risk. Furthermore, Engineers A and B have independent obligations to formally and in writing report their concerns to the state regulatory agency. While they may provide a joint and cooperative report, each has an...