Contrary to the advice of the State Board of Professional Engineers, Engineer A did not fulfill his ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics by only providing the report to the insurance company that retained him. Engineer A had a responsibility to take additional steps beyond merely submitting a written report to the insurance company, including contacting local building officials, individual homeowners, and the local homeowners or community civic association to advise them of his findings.

This case presents another example of a fundamental ethical dilemma faced by professional engineers in their professional practice. In this case, a professional engineer is presented with a situation involving a potential impact on the safety and welfare of members of the public. In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma on several occasions and has determined that each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved. While there can be no black-and-white standard that can be applied to these types of cases, there are basic values and principles contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics that provide important guidance to professional engineers who are faced with such situations. An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5. In this case, Engineer A worked for a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge that was 280 feet long and 30 feet above the stream. This bridge was a concrete deck on wood piles built by the state in the 1950s. It was part of the secondary roadway system given to the counties many years ago. In June 2000, Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating that the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings. Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon. Residents in the area were required to take a 10-mile detour. On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river, and the “Bridge Closed” sign was found beyond the trees by the roadway. More permanent barricades and signs were installed. The press published photos of some of the piles that did not reach the ground and the patchwork installed over the years. Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consu...

Engineer A is a professional engineer and registered architect with extensive design and forensic engineering experience. In performing a forensic engineering investigation for an insurance company, Engineer A is asked to look at a beam that had been burned, as a result of arson, in a residence that was at the time of the arson under construction. Following the initial arson investigation, Engineer A learns that the construction contractor determined that the beam could be reused on the project. Engineer A examines the 15-foot-long beam and determines that it is slightly charred, and it had been located next to a dining room with a two-story ceiling. On the other side, the beam had supported a second-floor bedroom, a wall, and (on both sides of the beam) a significant amount of roof of the residence. Engineer A initially observes that, aside from the slight fire damage, the beam looks too light to provide adequate structural support. Engineer A measures the tributary area of roof, floor, and wall bearing on the beam and runs a series of structural calculations.Following his review, Engineer A determines that the beam was seriously under-designed. Engineer A observes that since the house was a tract home, there are other identical designs in the subdivision. Engineer A writes his report and identifies the design defect, and expresses his larger concern regarding the possibility that an inadequate structural member was used in other houses in the subdivision. Engineer A submits his report to the insurance company that retained him. Engineer A, still concerned with his obligation to the public beyond just informing the insurance company, calls the State Board of Professional Engineers, apprises them of the situation, and asks what more could and should be done about the situation. The Board’s response is that Engineer A fulfilled his professional obligation by notifying the insurance company, in writing, of the defect.

Did Engineer A fulfill his ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics by providing the report to the insurance company that retained him?