Case Repository

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about increased risk?
2. Would it be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified...

Conclusions:

1. It was not unethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about unquantified increased risk. Later, Engineer L did comply with Code provisions that require engineers to notify their employers or clients if a project will not be successful.
2. It would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L. Continuing to work on the project after concerns about runoff were quantified would in effect mean Engineer L was placing the clients’ financial interest above the engineer’s paramount obligation to the public health, safety, and welfare. This, the engineer cannot ethically do.

Questions:

1. Should Engineer M challenge the validity of Firm DBA’s report?
2. Should Engineer M raise any concerns with the City, as the client, and, if so, how?
3. Are Firm DBA’s actions ethical? Even though Firm DBA is not providing engineering services, are they required to abide by NSPE’s Code of Ethics?

Conclusions:

1. Engineer M should challenge the validity of Firm DBA’s report as Firm DBA did not abide by the Code in a number of instances.
2. Engineer M should first confer with Firm DBA to correct all discrepancies in the report. If no agreement can be made going forward, Engineer M should confer with the City to outline the ethical obligations. Engineer M should also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
3. The actions of Firm DBA are not ethical under the Code as the services provided were under the supervision and ownership of licensed professional engineers.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude an error had not been made in design?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred?
3. Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error during the deposition?

Conclusions:

1. It was ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude no error had been made in design, based on review and analysis of the facts from both from a legal/contractual perspective and from an ethical perspective. Engineer T’s design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care.
2. It was ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred because there was no error. However, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project may have prevented the accident and worker injury, and this was a missed opportunity to hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare. Engineer T is encouraged to share this hard “lesson learned” as part of continued professional development.
3. It was ethical for Engineer T to refrain from acknowledging an error during the deposition because there was no error. Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error.

Questions:

1. Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony?
2. Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I?
3. After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities? Note that in the public record, H is...
4. ... and 1 more

Conclusions:

1. Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony. If R believes that there is a danger to public health, safety and welfare, R could choose to raise the concerns to a higher regulatory authority.
2. Engineer H’s testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical. [However, practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.]
3. Engineer R has an obligation to report H’s unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities.
4. Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning, whether by explaining how the issue had been addressed or by agreeing to re-examine the plans in light of the issue.

Questions:

Was it ethical for Engineer Intern A to fail to report to Engineer B that the defect had been missed for at least five annual inspections?

Conclusions:

It was not ethical for Engineer Intern A to fail to report to Engineer B that the defect had been missed for at least five years. That is material information that could have been critical to Engineer B’s decision-making.

Questions:

Was Engineer A’s self-description in the expert report ethical?

Conclusions:

Provided that Engineer A qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications, Engineer A’s self-presentation as a consultant-expert without identifying status as a licensed professional engineer was not unethical. However, when Engineer A claimed status as a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A’s self-presentation became unethical.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer B to not have included the failed operation of the test equipment in his report?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer B not to communicate with any representatives of Engineer A about the project?
3. Was it ethical for Engineer B not to communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction?
4. ... and 1 more

Conclusions:

1. It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning the failed operation of the testing equipment.
2. It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with any representative of Engineer A about the project.
3. It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction.
4. It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal.