DP4

Individual 0e0b87ec
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#DP4
Properties
Parent
DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint
Decision Point Id
DP4
Decision Question
Should Engineer A report the known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, or confine disclosure to a brief mention in the confidential structural report delivered only to the client?
Focus
Engineer A, having accepted a confidentiality agreement and learned through client disclosure that an occupied apartment building contains electrical and mechanical code violations capable of injuring occupants, must decide whether to report those violations to appropriate public authorities — or to limit disclosure to a brief mention in the confidential structural report addressed solely to the client. The core tension is between the paramount safety obligation under NSPE Code Section I.1 and Section II.1.a, which requires notification of appropriate authorities when professional judgment on life-endangering matters is overruled, and the confidentiality obligation under Sections II.1.c and III.4, which Engineer A treated as an absolute bar to external disclosure.
Option1
Notify the appropriate regulatory or public authorities of the disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations, invoking the Section II.1.c exception clause that releases engineers from confidentiality obligations when public danger is present, and inform the client in advance that this disclosure is required by the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation.
Option2
Document the electrical and mechanical violations in the confidential structural report delivered to the client, treating the confidentiality agreement and Section III.4's protection of client-transmitted information as a complete bar to external disclosure, on the grounds that the violations were client-confided rather than independently discovered and fall outside Engineer A's structural scope of work.
Option3
Formally demand in writing that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical violations before proceeding with the sale, and if the client refuses, withdraw from the engagement and decline to deliver the structural report — stopping short of notifying public authorities on the grounds that the confidentiality agreement and domain-competence limitations constrain the reporting duty, while avoiding passive acquiescence to the client's 'as is' directive.
Role Label
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix proethica_case_84: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84> . <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#DP4> a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP4" ; rdfs:subClassOf <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint> .
Metadata
Type
Individual
Content Hash
0e0b87ecbf33ad43...
Last Updated
2026-03-08 16:29
Extraction Provenance
Generated
2026-03-01T14:12:11.096199
Generated By
ProEthica Case 84 Extraction