DP5

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP5

If Engineer A's supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, what escalation steps is Engineer A ethically obligated to take, and how does the proportionality principle calibrate those steps relative to the full multi-authority campaign required in BER 00-5?

Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond his immediate supervisor — to higher OPQ Construction authority or directly to the state DOT — if the supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, and the sequencing and proportionality of that escalation relative to BER 00-5

Escalate the unresolved hazard through higher authority within OPQ Construction, and if internal channels also fail to produce corrective action, notify the state DOT directly in writing — while simultaneously refusing to finalize or seal the scaffolding design until the hazard is formally addressed

Treat the supervisor's non-response as a determination by OPQ Construction management that the hazard does not warrant project modification, document Engineer A's original notification in writing as a record of fulfilled duty, and proceed with completing the scaffolding design incorporating maximum feasible clearance buffers as an engineering accommodation — deferring further escalation unless a specific incident occurs

Escalate internally within OPQ Construction to the next supervisory level, and if that level also fails to act, submit a written notification to the state DOT framed as a contractor safety concern through the project's formal communication channel — stopping short of direct law enforcement notification on the grounds that the hazard's probability and imminence do not yet meet the threshold that justified the full multi-authority campaign in BER 00-5

Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn