Case Repository

2025

Sustainable Development and Resilient Infrastructure
Case #24-05 Synthesized
Questions:
  1. Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach is better. Should Engineer K have only presented information about the Sustainable Approach?
  2. Does Engineer K have any ethical obligations after the City approves the Traditional Approach?
Conclusions:
  1. Engineer K should present both approaches to the City if Engineer K believes both are viable solutions.
  2. Because Engineer K has entered into a contract to design the new flood water control system, Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee. Engineer K is ethically obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations to the City and continue to design the Traditional Approach as approved by the City.

2022

Independence of Peer Reviewer
Case #22-8 Synthesized
Questions:
  1. Is Engineer B ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review?
  2. Is Engineer A ethically required to cooperate with the peer review of Engineer B?
Conclusions:
  1. Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review. It is not necessary for Engineer B to provide that notice personally, but Engineer B must know either that Engineer A has been advised or that Engineer A has been terminated from the project.
  2. Owner and Engineer B are not required to obtain Engineer A’s consent to the peer review, merely to assure that Engineer A has been informed of the peer review. Especially in the face of known design defects in the first tower, Engineer A may not ethically object to the peer review.