BER-Case-79-7
Rs · Resource
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/173#BER-Case-79-7
Properties
Instance of
Confidence
0.97
Created by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Document title
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 79-7
Importance
high
Used by
Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the notification and consultation obligations in the instant case
Used in context
Established the rationale for Section III.8.a. (formerly Section 12(a)): that the original engineer must be notified of a review so they may submit comments or explanations, enabling the reviewing engineer to have a fuller understanding of the original design; applied analogically to Engineer B's conduct in modifying Engineer A's plans
Version
1979
Source Evidence
Source text
In Case 79-7 an engineer was asked to inspect mechanical and electrical engineering work performed seven years earlier.
Text references
For the reasons cited in Case 79-7 we think it would have been wiser and more professional for Engineer B to consult with Engineer A before undertaking to modify the plans prepared by Engineer A.
In Case 79-7 an engineer was asked to inspect mechanical and electrical engineering work performed seven years earlier.
Said the Board: 'It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit ... comments or explanations for... technical decision, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing . . . comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client.'
TTL
@prefix case173: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/173#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case173:BER-Case-79-7 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER-Case-79-7" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ;
proeth:confidence "0.97" ;
proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "173" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 79-7" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T14:16:22.030716+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "173" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T14:16:22.030716+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ;
proeth:sourcetext "In Case 79-7 an engineer was asked to inspect mechanical and electrical engineering work performed seven years earlier." ;
proeth:textreferences "For the reasons cited in Case 79-7 we think it would have been wiser and more professional for Engineer B to consult with Engineer A before undertaking to modify the plans prepared by Engineer A.",
"In Case 79-7 an engineer was asked to inspect mechanical and electrical engineering work performed seven years earlier.",
"Said the Board: 'It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit ... comments or explanations for... technical decision, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing . . . comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client.'" ;
proeth:usedby "Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the notification and consultation obligations in the instant case" ;
proeth:usedincontext "Established the rationale for Section III.8.a. (formerly Section 12(a)): that the original engineer must be notified of a review so they may submit comments or explanations, enabling the reviewing engineer to have a fuller understanding of the original design; applied analogically to Engineer B's conduct in modifying Engineer A's plans" ;
proeth:version "1979" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 173 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T14:41:54.496682"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 173 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
173
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T14:16:22.030716+00:00
First case
173
Generated
2026-03-01T14:16:22.030716+00:00
Attributed to
Case 173 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T14:41:54.496682
Generated by
ProEthica Case 173 Extraction