DP3

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

DP3

Should Engineer A report the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical violations to public authorities despite lacking competence in those domains, or does his structural-only scope of work and domain incompetence limit his reporting obligation to client notification alone?

Engineer A must determine whether his lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering — combined with the fact that the violations were disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered — diminishes or eliminates his obligation to report those violations to public authorities, or whether the NSPE Code's public safety duty is triggered by recognition of injury risk alone, making domain incompetence a reason to escalate rather than a reason to remain silent.

Notify appropriate public authorities of the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations, conveying what the client confirmed rather than what Engineer A independently assessed, on the grounds that the recognition of injury risk — not technical mastery — is the operative threshold for the public safety reporting duty.

Treat the verbal warning to the client as the limit of Engineer A's authority to act on out-of-discipline violations, on the grounds that his structural scope of work and lack of electrical and mechanical competence constrain both his ability to evaluate the severity of the hazard and his professional authority to demand or report corrective action beyond his discipline.

Decline to report directly to public authorities given domain incompetence, but condition delivery of the structural report on the client retaining a licensed electrical and mechanical engineer to assess and certify the disclosed violations — treating the engagement of a competent specialist as the appropriate escalation pathway consistent with the competence boundary recognition obligation.

Engineer