NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 00-5
An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5
In determining Engineer A's ethical obligation under these circumstances, the Board decided that Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning to distinguish levels of required response based on imminence and scope of danger
Cited as a primary precedent illustrating how the Board addresses public safety dilemmas involving bridge structural failure; establishes the 'full-bore campaign' standard for imminent, widespread public danger requiring escalation to multiple authorities
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 07-10
In BER Case 07-10, the Board was faced with a case in which Engineer A had designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
The BER concluded that in BER Case 07-10, the limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning to calibrate the current case's required response level
Cited as a precedent establishing the proportionality principle in public safety escalation obligations — where danger is significant but not imminent or widespread, written notification to the owner and relevant authority is the appropriate standard, with graduated escalation if no action is taken
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 89-7
Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5 analysis, referenced in the current case discussion
Cited as part of a cluster of earlier precedents establishing the foundational principle that engineers must not bow to public pressure or employment situations when great dangers are present, as this would constitute an abrogation of fundamental professional responsibility
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 90-5
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 92-6
Cited as part of a cluster of earlier precedents establishing the foundational principle that engineers must not bow to public pressure or employment situations when great dangers are present; also previously identified as a standalone precedent in the ontology
Bridge Structural Hazard - BER Case 00-5
From June 2000 telephone call from bridge inspector through replacement project completion
Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating that the bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten pilings.
280-foot concrete deck on wood piles bridge with rotten pilings, 30 feet above stream
Bridge replacement (not described as completed within case facts)
Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge.
Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
Bridge inspector telephone call reporting large number of rotten pilings requiring closure
Building Owners Safety Recommendation Recipients
{'building_condition': 'Structurally unstable due to recent modifications', 'safety_recommendation_received': 'Brace building to prevent collapse', 'certificate_of_occupancy': 'Issued following structural modifications'}
Owners of the structurally unstable building who received Engineer A's recommendation to brace the building to prevent collapse; had made recent structural modifications that caused roof sag and wall lean
{'type': 'advised_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer'}
{'type': 'regulated_by', 'target': 'County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority Individual'}
Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse
there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward
Professional engineering community consensus
Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard
Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes
Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
Engineer A upon observing structural instability during fire investigation
Governs Engineer A's professional obligations upon discovering structural instability during a fire origin-and-cause investigation, including the duty to assess collapse risk, notify the client, and contact relevant authorities
Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard (Professional Norm)
Engineer A was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse
Engineer A and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the nature and severity of the structural safety concern
Implicitly invoked as the professional standard governing Engineer A's assessment of structural collapse risk from the removal of columns and footings supporting the barn roof under severe snow loads, and the obligations triggered by that assessment
Call to County Building Official → County Official Call Unanswered
CausalLink_Bracing Recommendation to Owne
CausalLink_Call to County Building Offici
CausalLink_Decision Not to Further Escala
CausalLink_Scope Expansion to Structural
CausalLink_Verbal Notification to Client
Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Concern - BER Case 07-10
From issuance of certificate of occupancy through Engineer A's notification efforts
The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued.
Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency State
Town's issuance of certificate of occupancy for barn extension that Engineer A believes compromises structural integrity
Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Town approved Jones's structural modifications and issued certificate of occupancy despite removal of load-bearing columns and footings
Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency
From issuance of certificate of occupancy through Engineer A's notification of the county building official
Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
County building official issued certificate of occupancy following construction modifications that Engineer A concludes caused structural deficiency
Pending — county building official has not responded; structural concern remains unresolved
County building official issues certificate of occupancy following construction modifications
Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework
Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call
Engineer A and county building official in assessing post-issuance safety concerns
Provides the legal and regulatory context for understanding how the building received a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications, and the obligations of the county building official when structural safety concerns are raised post-issuance
Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework (Local/State Building Authority)
The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued
contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations after a certificate of occupancy was issued for a potentially unsafe structural modification
Referenced as the regulatory backdrop against which Engineer A's post-issuance safety concern obligations are evaluated; the certificate of occupancy had been issued for the modified barn structure, raising the question of whether and how an engineer can trigger re-investigation after official approval
Client B Building Safety Investigation Client
{'engagement_type': 'Fire investigation client', 'financial_interest': 'Financial loss from fire'}
Retained Engineer A to investigate fire origin and cause; received notification of structural instability from Engineer A
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer'}
Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss
Client Relationship - Engineer A and Client B
Active at time of structural safety concern identification
Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
Professional relationship between Engineer A and Client B regarding building with structural safety concern
Not described as terminated within case facts
Engineer A engaged by Client B in professional capacity
Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting in writing the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency with jurisdiction, advising them of the structural deficiencies.
The Board concluded that Engineer A's obligation did not end with the unanswered phone call to the county building official. Engineer A was required to escalate further by working collaboratively with Client B and by contacting in writing the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency with jurisdiction to advise them of the structural deficiencies. This reflects the Board's application of the persistent escalation obligation, the written documentation requirement, and the public welfare paramount principle, calibrated to the non-imminent but real structural collapse risk present in the current case.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A was obligated to escalate in writing to the county building official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction, the Board's conclusion implicitly establishes that a single unanswered phone call is categorically insufficient to discharge the public safety escalation duty under the NSPE Code. The verbal-only notification to the county building official, while a necessary first step, created no durable record of the hazard, imposed no institutional accountability on the receiving agency, and left the collapse risk entirely unmitigated once the call went unreturned. The Written Documentation Requirement is not merely a procedural formality in this context — it is the mechanism by which Engineer A's safety concern acquires regulatory traction. Without a written record, the county building official's non-response effectively erases Engineer A's notification from the administrative record, leaving the building's certificate of occupancy unchallenged and the public unprotected. Engineer A's obligation to follow up in writing was therefore not a heightened or extraordinary duty triggered only by imminent collapse risk; it was the baseline minimum required whenever a verbal notification fails to produce a response from the responsible authority. The BER Case 07-10 precedent, in which the Board criticized verbal-only communication with a town supervisor as insufficient, directly supports this conclusion and applies with equal or greater force here, where the county building official did not even acknowledge receipt of the safety concern.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should have worked with Client B while also escalating to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities reveals an important but underexplored tension: the faithful agent duty to Client B does not disappear once the public safety escalation duty is triggered, but it does become subordinate to it. Engineer A's obligation to collaborate with Client B in pursuing resolution is not merely a courtesy — it reflects the recognition that Client B, as the party who retained Engineer A and who has a direct financial and legal stake in the building, may be a constructive partner in compelling the county building official to act. However, if Client B were to object to further disclosure or escalation — for example, to avoid regulatory scrutiny, liability exposure, or remediation costs — that objection cannot ethically constrain Engineer A's escalation duty. The Public Welfare Paramount principle, codified in Code Section I.1, establishes that the safety of the public is not a negotiable interest that clients may waive on the public's behalf. The Confidentiality Non-Applicability principle further confirms that client confidentiality does not bar disclosure of structural hazards to regulatory authorities. Consequently, while Engineer A should pursue resolution collaboratively with Client B as a first preference, the ethical architecture of the NSPE Code requires that Engineer A proceed with written escalation to supervisory authorities and alternative agencies regardless of Client B's preferences if Client B declines to participate or actively objects. The Board's framing of 'working with Client B' should therefore be understood as describing a preferred process, not a precondition for escalation.
The Board's conclusion implicitly resolves, but does not explicitly address, the question of whether Engineer A's dual role as forensic fire investigator and licensed structural engineer expands the scope of professional duty beyond the four corners of the fire investigation engagement. The Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Defense principle, supported by the BER Case 89-7 and BER Case 90-5 precedents, establishes that an engineer cannot invoke a contractually narrow engagement scope as a shield against the obligation to act on incidentally discovered safety hazards. Engineer A's structural engineering licensure and competence were not suspended by the terms of the fire investigation contract; they remained active professional credentials carrying independent ethical obligations. When Engineer A observed and assessed the structural instability — performing a preliminary structural investigation, identifying insufficient lateral restraint, and concluding that collapse was a danger — Engineer A was not acting as a layperson who happened to notice something alarming. Engineer A was exercising licensed structural engineering judgment, and that exercise activated the full suite of public safety obligations that attach to structural engineering practice under the NSPE Code. This means that the epistemic qualification of the assessment as 'preliminary' does not diminish the escalation obligation; rather, it may independently require Engineer A to recommend or undertake a more definitive structural evaluation before or alongside the escalation campaign, so that the regulatory authorities contacted have actionable technical information rather than a tentative concern. The Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation and the Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation together establish that Engineer A's structural expertise, once engaged, cannot be selectively invoked for the purpose of identifying a hazard while simultaneously being disclaimed for the purpose of avoiding the escalation duty that the identification triggers.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should have escalated to the fire marshal or other agencies with jurisdiction — not merely to the county building official's supervisor — reflects a graduated, multi-agency escalation model that the current case shares with BER Case 00-5 and BER Case 07-10, but with important calibration differences that the Board did not fully articulate. In BER Case 00-5, the imminent and widespread collapse risk of a bridge carrying live traffic justified full-bore escalation including physical closure measures and contact with multiple governmental layers simultaneously. In BER Case 07-10, the non-imminent barn collapse risk under severe snow loads justified a more measured, deadline-conditioned escalation: notify the new owner first, then escalate to the town supervisor, then to county and state building officials if the deadline passed without action. The current case sits between these poles: the collapse risk is non-imminent, as in BER 07-10, but the county building official has already issued a certificate of occupancy that implicitly endorses the building's safety, and that official has failed to respond to Engineer A's notification at all. The certificate of occupancy creates a heightened escalation obligation relative to BER 07-10, because the official's prior action has affirmatively misrepresented the building's safety to the public and to future occupants. The non-response compounds this by foreclosing the possibility that the official will self-correct. Consequently, the appropriate escalation model for the current case is more aggressive than the deadline-conditioned approach of BER 07-10 but does not require the simultaneous multi-agency blitz of BER 00-5. Engineer A should have moved promptly — not after an extended waiting period — to written notification of the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, while continuing to work with Client B, because the combination of a misleading certificate of occupancy and official non-response eliminated the justification for further delay.
In response to Q101: Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond the unresponsive county building official does not diminish simply because Client B objects to further disclosure. The faithful agent duty owed to Client B is a real and important professional obligation, but it is explicitly subordinate to the paramount duty to protect public safety under NSPE Code Section I.1. Once Engineer A has notified Client B of the structural deficiency — satisfying the faithful agent notification obligation — and the county building official has failed to respond, the public welfare paramount principle takes over as the controlling ethical norm. Client B's preference to avoid costly remediation or regulatory scrutiny cannot serve as a veto over Engineer A's independent duty to the public. The threshold at which public welfare overrides the faithful agent duty is crossed when: (1) a credible structural hazard has been identified, (2) the client has been informed, and (3) the designated regulatory authority has failed to act. All three conditions are satisfied here. At that point, Engineer A's obligation to escalate in writing to the county official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction is not merely permissible — it is ethically required, regardless of Client B's preferences.
In response to Q102: The preliminary nature of Engineer A's structural assessment does affect the manner in which escalation should be framed, but it does not raise the threshold at which escalation becomes obligatory. Engineer A's professional judgment — even when preliminary — that the building is at risk of collapse due to insufficient lateral restraint is sufficient to trigger the disclosure and escalation obligations under the NSPE Code. A preliminary assessment by a licensed structural engineer is not equivalent to uninformed speculation; it reflects professional competence applied to observed conditions. However, the epistemic qualification of 'preliminary' does impose a corresponding obligation of epistemic honesty: Engineer A should communicate the preliminary nature of the assessment clearly in any written escalation, recommend that a more definitive structural evaluation be conducted, and avoid overstating certainty. The preliminary characterization thus shapes the content and tone of the escalation rather than its necessity. Waiting for a definitive evaluation before notifying authorities would be ethically impermissible if the building remained occupied during that interval, because the risk — though non-imminent — is real and the certificate of occupancy creates a false assurance of safety.
In response to Q103: The county building official's prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications does not diminish Engineer A's escalation obligation — it heightens it. The certificate of occupancy creates a legally and socially authoritative signal to occupants and the public that the building is safe. When Engineer A's professional assessment contradicts that signal, the gap between official assurance and actual structural condition represents a compounded public safety risk: occupants are not merely unwarned, they are affirmatively misled by the certificate. This makes the county building official's non-response to Engineer A's phone call particularly consequential, because the official's silence perpetuates a false safety assurance. Far from suggesting that the matter has already been reviewed and resolved, the certificate of occupancy issued after the very modifications that Engineer A identifies as the source of structural deficiency raises a serious question about whether the official's prior inspection was adequate. Engineer A's escalation obligation is therefore not weakened by deference to the official's prior judgment; rather, the official's apparent failure to detect the deficiency is itself a reason to escalate to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities.
In response to Q104: The building owners' refusal to implement the recommended bracing independently triggers an escalation obligation, separate from and in addition to the obligation triggered by the county building official's non-response. When Engineer A recommends a specific corrective action — bracing — to prevent a known structural collapse risk, and the owners decline to act, the structural hazard remains unmitigated. At that point, Engineer A has exhausted the remedies available through direct advisory action to the parties most immediately responsible for the building. The combination of owner inaction and official non-response leaves the public exposed to a risk that Engineer A has identified and that no responsible party has addressed. Under NSPE Code Section I.1 and the persistent escalation obligation, Engineer A's duty to hold public welfare paramount requires escalation to supervisory authorities, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction. The owners' refusal is not merely a private business decision; it is a decision that affects the safety of anyone who enters or occupies the building, and Engineer A cannot ethically treat it as the end of the matter.
In response to Q201: The tension between the faithful agent notification obligation to Client B and the public welfare paramount principle is real but resolvable through sequencing rather than subordination. Engineer A satisfies the faithful agent obligation by notifying Client B first and promptly — which the facts confirm was done. Once that notification is complete, the faithful agent obligation does not extend to suppressing or deferring further escalation at Client B's request when public safety is at stake. The NSPE Code's structure is hierarchical: Section I.1 places public welfare paramount, and the faithful agent duty in Section III is explicitly bounded by that hierarchy. Client B's potential preference to avoid regulatory scrutiny or remediation costs is a legitimate business interest, but it is not an interest that Engineer A is ethically permitted to protect at the expense of public safety. The resolution of the tension is therefore: notify Client B first, document that notification, and then proceed with escalation to regulatory authorities regardless of Client B's preferences, because the faithful agent duty does not include the duty to suppress safety-critical information from public authorities.
In response to Q202: The tension between proportional escalation for non-imminent risks and the persistent escalation obligation triggered by the county building official's non-response is resolved by recognizing that proportionality governs the form and sequence of escalation, not its ultimate necessity. For a non-imminent risk, proportionality counsels against immediately deploying the full-bore, multi-agency campaign appropriate for an imminent collapse — as seen in BER Case 00-5 — and instead favors a graduated, deadline-conditioned approach modeled on BER Case 07-10. However, proportionality does not permit Engineer A to stop escalating simply because the risk is non-imminent. The county building official's failure to return the phone call is precisely the trigger that advances Engineer A to the next step in the graduated escalation sequence: a written notification to the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction. The proportionality principle shapes the pace and formality of escalation; the persistent escalation obligation ensures that non-response at one level does not terminate the process. The two principles are therefore complementary rather than conflicting when properly sequenced.
In response to Q203: The scope-of-work limitation of Engineer A's fire investigation engagement cannot serve as a complete defense against the obligation to disclose and act on the structural deficiency, but it does shape the extent of the structural analysis Engineer A is obligated to perform. The multi-credential competence activation obligation means that Engineer A's status as a licensed structural engineer — not merely a fire investigator — activates a professional duty to assess and disclose structural hazards that come within Engineer A's observation and competence during the engagement. However, this activation does not automatically require Engineer A to conduct a full, fee-bearing structural engineering investigation beyond the scope of the fire investigation contract. What it does require is: (1) disclosure of the observed structural concern to Client B and relevant authorities, (2) a preliminary assessment sufficient to characterize the nature and approximate severity of the risk, and (3) a recommendation that a comprehensive structural evaluation be performed by a qualified engineer. Engineer A is not ethically required to perform that comprehensive evaluation without a separate engagement, but Engineer A is ethically prohibited from treating the scope limitation as a reason to remain silent about a hazard that professional competence has identified.
In response to Q204: The written documentation requirement and the proportional escalation obligation for non-imminent risks are not genuinely in conflict — they operate on different dimensions of the same duty. Proportionality addresses the intensity and urgency of escalation; the written documentation requirement addresses the form that escalation must take to be effective and verifiable. BER Case 07-10 demonstrates precisely why verbal-only notification is insufficient even for non-imminent risks: Engineer A in that case made only a verbal communication to the town supervisor, and the Board found that obligation unfulfilled because there was no written record and no confirmed follow-up. The lesson is that written documentation is not a disproportionate formality — it is the minimum standard of care for any safety notification that must survive the test of non-response or denial. A written escalation to the county building official's supervisor or the fire marshal is not disproportionate to a non-imminent structural collapse risk; it is the appropriate and proportionate response to a situation where a verbal phone call has already been ignored. The written documentation requirement therefore reinforces rather than conflicts with proportional escalation.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did not fulfill the categorical duty to protect public safety by stopping at a single unanswered phone call. The NSPE Code's mandate to hold public welfare paramount functions as a near-categorical rule: it does not permit an engineer to discharge the duty through a single good-faith gesture that produces no protective outcome. Kant's categorical imperative, applied to professional engineering ethics, would ask whether a maxim of 'notify once verbally and then stop' could be universalized without undermining the entire system of public safety protection that engineering licensure is designed to provide. It cannot. If every engineer treated a single unanswered phone call as sufficient discharge of the public safety duty, the duty would be rendered meaningless in precisely the cases where it matters most — those where responsible authorities are unresponsive. The non-imminent nature of the collapse risk affects the urgency and form of the duty's discharge, but it does not convert the categorical obligation into a discretionary one. Engineer A's duty to escalate in writing to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities is unconditional once the initial notification has been ignored.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's decision to limit escalation to a single unanswered phone call produced a clearly suboptimal outcome for public safety. The building retained a certificate of occupancy, the structural deficiency remained unaddressed, and the collapse risk was unmitigated. The counterfactual outcomes of a written multi-agency escalation campaign are meaningfully better: written notification to the county official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or state building authorities would have created an official record, imposed accountability on regulatory actors, and substantially increased the probability that the structural deficiency would be formally reviewed and remediated. The costs of that escalation — primarily Engineer A's time and the potential for regulatory friction with Client B — are modest compared to the benefit of reducing the probability of structural collapse and the associated harm to occupants and the public. A consequentialist calculus therefore strongly supports the Board's conclusion that Engineer A was obligated to pursue written escalation. The non-imminent characterization of the risk reduces the urgency of the escalation but does not change the direction of the cost-benefit analysis.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's actions — recommending bracing to the owners and making a single phone call — reflect the beginning of professional virtue but fall short of its full expression. A virtuous professional engineer, characterized by integrity, moral courage, and genuine commitment to public welfare, would not treat an unanswered phone call as the end of the matter when a structural hazard remains unaddressed. Virtue ethics asks not merely what rules require but what a person of excellent professional character would do. Such a person would recognize that the phone call's failure to produce a response is not a discharge of responsibility but a signal that more persistent and formal action is required. The virtue of moral courage is particularly relevant: escalating in writing to supervisory authorities, potentially over the objection of Client B, requires a willingness to accept professional friction in service of a higher obligation. Engineer A's preliminary assessment and initial notifications demonstrate competence and good faith, but genuine professional virtue requires persistent, documented advocacy until a responsible authority acknowledges and commits to addressing the structural deficiency.
In response to Q304: Engineer A's dual role as forensic fire investigator and licensed structural engineer creates a non-waivable duty to act on incidentally discovered structural hazards, and the scope-of-work limitation of the fire investigation contract cannot serve as a moral or professional defense for inaction. The NSPE Code's competence provision in Section I.2 and the public welfare paramount principle in Section I.1 operate independently of contractual scope definitions. When Engineer A's structural engineering competence is activated by the observation of a structural deficiency — regardless of the engagement's primary purpose — the professional duty to disclose and escalate attaches. The faithful agent obligation to Client B is satisfied by prompt notification, but it does not extend to suppressing the structural concern from regulatory authorities. The interaction between the scope limitation and the faithful agent duty is therefore asymmetric: the scope limitation constrains what Engineer A is contractually obligated to investigate and report to Client B as a deliverable, but it does not constrain what Engineer A is ethically obligated to disclose to public authorities as a licensed professional. The dual-role context thus expands rather than contracts Engineer A's disclosure obligations.
In response to Q401: If Engineer A had immediately followed the unanswered phone call with written notification to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, the probability of the certificate of occupancy being suspended and the collapse risk being mitigated before reoccupancy would have been substantially higher. Written notification creates an official record that demands a documented response, imposes accountability on supervisory officials, and activates the fire marshal's independent authority to inspect and act. Whether the certificate would definitively have been suspended cannot be determined with certainty, but the absence of written escalation removes the most effective mechanism available to Engineer A for compelling regulatory action. The absence of that written escalation does constitute a breach of Engineer A's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code, regardless of the non-imminent nature of the risk. The non-imminent characterization affects the urgency and form of escalation but does not eliminate the obligation. An engineer who identifies a structural hazard, notifies the client, makes a single unanswered phone call, and then stops has not discharged the duty to hold public welfare paramount — particularly when the building retains a certificate of occupancy that affirmatively misleads occupants about its safety.
In response to Q402: If the county building official had returned Engineer A's call but refused to revoke the certificate of occupancy, citing the prior inspection as sufficient, Engineer A's ethical obligations would have required escalation to the fire marshal, state building authority, or other agencies with jurisdiction. A responsive but dismissive official does not terminate Engineer A's escalation obligation any more than a non-responsive one does. The BER 07-10 precedent of deadline-conditioned escalation is instructive: in that case, the Board held that Engineer A should have given the town supervisor a reasonable deadline to act and, upon non-compliance, escalated to the county and state building officials. The same logic applies here: if the county building official affirmatively refuses to act, Engineer A should document that refusal in writing, advise the official of the structural basis for the concern, and then escalate to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities. The official's prior inspection and certificate of occupancy do not constitute a final and unreviewable safety determination; they are administrative actions that can be revisited when new professional evidence of structural deficiency is presented by a licensed engineer.
In response to Q403: If Client B had explicitly instructed Engineer A not to contact any government authorities about the structural deficiency, invoking confidentiality, that instruction would not have relieved Engineer A of the obligation to notify the county building official and escalate further. The NSPE Code's confidentiality provisions do not extend to suppressing information about structural hazards that endanger public safety. The confidentiality non-applicability principle is well-established in engineering ethics: an engineer cannot be bound by client confidentiality to remain silent about conditions that pose a risk to the life, health, or safety of the public. A client instruction to withhold safety-critical information from regulatory authorities is not a legitimate exercise of the client's authority over the professional relationship — it is a request that Engineer A breach a higher-order professional duty. Engineer A would be obligated to inform Client B that the instruction cannot be followed, to document that communication, and to proceed with notification to the county building official and, upon non-response, to supervisory and alternative regulatory authorities. The public welfare paramount principle overrides any client-imposed confidentiality constraint in a case involving structural collapse risk.
In response to Q404: If the structural instability Engineer A discovered had posed an imminent rather than non-imminent collapse risk, the BER 00-5 precedent of full-bore, multi-agency escalation and physical closure measures would have applied directly. In BER 00-5, the Board held that Engineer A was obligated to erect physical barricades, close the bridge to traffic, resist public pressure to reopen it, and escalate through multiple governmental channels simultaneously — all because the collapse risk was imminent and the consequences catastrophic. In the current case, the non-imminent characterization does represent a meaningful ethical distinction, but it is a distinction in urgency and form rather than in the underlying duty. The underlying duty — to hold public welfare paramount and to escalate until a responsible authority acts — is identical in both cases. What changes is the pace, the sequence, and the proportionality of the escalation response. An imminent risk demands immediate, simultaneous, multi-agency action and physical intervention if necessary. A non-imminent risk demands graduated, documented, deadline-conditioned escalation through the regulatory hierarchy. Both demands are ethically obligatory; neither permits Engineer A to stop at a single unanswered phone call.
The tension between the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was resolved in this case through a sequenced, not competing, framework: Engineer A's duty to Client B was satisfied first by immediate verbal notification of the structural deficiency, but that satisfaction did not exhaust Engineer A's obligations. Once Client B was informed and the county building official failed to respond, the Public Welfare Paramount principle assumed unambiguous priority. The case teaches that faithful agency and public welfare are not symmetrically weighted duties — client loyalty operates within a ceiling defined by public safety, and when a non-imminent but real collapse risk remains unmitigated after client notification and an unanswered regulatory call, the public welfare obligation displaces any residual deference to client preference about further escalation. Client B's potential preference against further disclosure cannot lawfully or ethically cap Engineer A's escalation duty once the regulatory channel has gone silent.
The interaction between the Risk Threshold Calibration principle and the Persistent Escalation Obligation reveals that proportionality governs the form and pace of escalation, not whether escalation occurs at all. Because the collapse risk was non-imminent rather than imminent, Engineer A was not required to pursue the full-bore, multi-agency, physical-closure campaign demanded by BER Case 00-5's bridge scenario. However, proportionality does not mean passivity: the Persistent Escalation Obligation, activated by the county building official's non-response, required Engineer A to advance to the next available authority — the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or any other agency with jurisdiction — in writing. The case thus teaches that the imminent/non-imminent distinction calibrates the intensity and urgency of escalation but does not create a threshold below which escalation becomes optional. A graduated, deadline-conditioned written escalation chain is the proportionate response to a non-imminent risk combined with regulatory non-response, and stopping at a single unanswered phone call falls below even the proportionate minimum.
The interaction between the Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Defense principle and the Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation establishes a compounding duty structure: when an engineer possesses structural expertise and exercises it — even incidentally during a fire investigation — the contractual scope of the engagement cannot insulate that engineer from the ethical consequences of what the structural expertise reveals. Engineer A's preliminary structural assessment, however labeled, constituted a professional judgment by a licensed structural engineer. That judgment activated both the Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation and the Written Documentation Requirement simultaneously. The case further teaches that the Written Documentation Requirement does not conflict with proportional escalation for non-imminent risks; rather, written documentation is precisely the proportionate tool for non-imminent risks because it creates an accountable record that survives the informality of a phone call, ensures the hazard is not lost in bureaucratic non-response, and satisfies the engineer's duty under NSPE Code Section II.1.a to notify when judgment is effectively overruled by inaction. The preliminary nature of the structural assessment may appropriately qualify the epistemic confidence expressed in written notifications, but it does not reduce the obligation to make them.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability Applied in Current Case
Engineer A's disclosure of structural instability to the county building official — without Client B's explicit authorization — did not violate confidentiality obligations because the disclosure served the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and the structural hazard constituted an apparent danger to the public interest
Confidentiality obligations do not bar disclosure of apparent public dangers to regulatory authorities; such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code
Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
Public welfare obligation overrides confidentiality when an apparent danger to the public interest is identified
Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
Confidentiality Non-Applicability Invoked By Engineer A Disclosure To County Official
Disclosure of structural hazard to county building official
Engineer A's disclosure of the structural instability to the county building official was not barred by client confidentiality obligations, because the disclosure served the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and did not constitute disclosure of protected confidential business information
Client confidentiality did not bar Engineer A from notifying the county building official of the structural hazard; the public danger exception to confidentiality applies because the disclosure was to a regulatory authority for public protection purposes
Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
Public danger disclosure exception overrides client confidentiality; Engineer A correctly disclosed the structural hazard to the county building official without requiring client consent
County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority Individual
{'authority': 'Certificate of occupancy issuance', 'jurisdiction': 'County building code enforcement', 'response': "Did not return Engineer A's phone call"}
Issued certificate of occupancy following structural modifications to the building; failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural hazard
{'type': 'issued_certificate_for', 'target': 'Building Owners Safety Recommendation Recipients'}
{'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Building Investigation Engineer'}
County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority
the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
Engineer A also calls the county building official
County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority Non-Response Structural Hazard
The county building official issued a certificate of occupancy following construction modifications that Engineer A determined may have caused structural instability; the county building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call reporting the hazard.
Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Obligation
The county building official, having issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications and having been notified of a structural hazard by Engineer A, was obligated to respond to Engineer A's notification and take appropriate regulatory action to address the identified structural safety concern.
Upon receipt of Engineer A's phone call reporting the structural hazard
The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
{'type': 'Public regulatory official', 'action': "Did not return Engineer A's phone call"}
County building official who issued a certificate of occupancy for the building under investigation and failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural safety concerns, triggering the engineer's obligation to escalate to supervisors and other authorities.
{'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer A (Current Case) Forensic Building Investigation Engineer'}
{'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Supervisor of County Building Official'}
contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
County Building Official Non-Response - Current Case
From Engineer A's contact with county building official through obligation to escalate to supervisor and other agencies
County Building Official Non-Response to Safety Notification State
County building official's failure to respond to Engineer A's safety notification
Not resolved within case facts — escalation to supervisor and fire marshal identified as required next step
Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction.
Engineer A contacted county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
County Building Official Non-Response to Safety Notification
From Engineer A's phone call to county building official through any eventual response or escalation
Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official.
County building official fails to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural safety concern
County building official responds, or Engineer A escalates to supervisor or other authority
Engineer A calls county building official to report structural instability; official does not return the call
County Commission decision before preliminary site investigation studies
After the county building official fails to return Engineer A's phone call regarding a non-imminent but real structural collapse risk, what escalation actions does Engineer A's public safety obligation require?
Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond a single unanswered phone call to the county building official, including the requirement to follow up in writing and contact supervisory or alternative regulatory authorities
Follow up the unanswered phone call with written notification to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, documenting the structural concern, the preliminary assessment findings, and the prior unanswered contact, while continuing to work collaboratively with Client B toward remediation
Send a written follow-up letter to the same county building official reiterating the structural concern and requesting a response within a defined deadline, deferring escalation to supervisory or alternative agencies unless that deadline passes without acknowledgment
Treat the unanswered phone call as sufficient initial discharge of the reporting obligation for a non-imminent risk, document the call in Engineer A's own records, and await further developments — such as owner refusal to brace or building reoccupancy — before escalating further
When Client B has been verbally notified of the structural deficiency but may object to further regulatory escalation that could trigger costly remediation or liability, does Engineer A's faithful agent duty constrain the public safety escalation obligation?
The interaction between Engineer A's faithful agent duty to Client B and the public welfare paramount principle when Client B may prefer that Engineer A not escalate further to supervisory or alternative regulatory authorities
Inform Client B that written escalation to supervisory regulatory authorities is professionally required regardless of client preference, document that communication, and proceed with written notification to the county building official's supervisor and fire marshal while inviting Client B to participate constructively in the escalation process
Work collaboratively with Client B to pursue voluntary remediation — including engaging a structural engineer for a definitive evaluation and implementing the recommended bracing — before escalating to supervisory regulatory authorities, treating client collaboration as the preferred first path and regulatory escalation as a subsequent step if collaboration fails
Treat the faithful agent duty as requiring deference to Client B's preferences on further escalation given the non-imminent nature of the risk, limit further action to written documentation of the concern in Engineer A's own records, and advise Client B in writing of the structural risk and the recommendation to engage a structural engineer — without independently contacting supervisory regulatory authorities absent Client B's consent
Does the preliminary and incidental nature of Engineer A's structural assessment — made during a fire investigation engagement rather than a formal structural engineering engagement — affect the threshold at which disclosure and escalation to regulatory authorities become obligatory?
Whether Engineer A's preliminary structural assessment — made incidentally during a fire investigation engagement — is sufficient to trigger the disclosure and escalation obligations, or whether the epistemic uncertainty of a preliminary finding defers those obligations pending a more definitive evaluation
Disclose the preliminary structural findings in writing to Client B and the county building official immediately, clearly qualifying the assessment as preliminary, recommending that a comprehensive structural evaluation be commissioned, and escalating to supervisory authorities upon the official's non-response — without waiting for a definitive evaluation before initiating disclosure
Recommend to Client B that a separate structural engineering engagement be commissioned to produce a definitive assessment before notifying regulatory authorities, on the grounds that a preliminary finding by an engineer retained for a different scope does not yet constitute a sufficient professional basis for regulatory escalation
Include the structural observations as a noted finding in the fire investigation report delivered to Client B, flagging the concern for Client B's attention and recommending further evaluation, while treating the scope limitation of the fire investigation engagement as precluding independent regulatory notification absent a separate structural engineering retainer
Does the county building official's prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications that Engineer A identifies as the source of deficiency heighten or diminish Engineer A's obligation to escalate, and does it affect which authorities Engineer A must contact?
The effect of the county building official's prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications on Engineer A's escalation obligation — whether the prior official endorsement heightens, diminishes, or is neutral with respect to the duty to escalate
Escalate promptly in writing to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, explicitly noting that the building retains a certificate of occupancy issued after the modifications Engineer A identifies as structurally deficient, and requesting that the certificate be reviewed and the building re-inspected before continued occupancy
Direct written escalation to the same county building official who issued the certificate of occupancy, providing a written summary of the structural findings and requesting a formal re-inspection, treating the issuing official as the appropriate first-line authority for remedial action before escalating to supervisory bodies
Treat the certificate of occupancy as evidence that the county building official previously reviewed the structural modifications and found them acceptable, and defer further escalation pending a definitive structural engineering evaluation that can rebut the official's prior determination with greater certainty than a preliminary assessment provides
When the building owners decline to implement Engineer A's bracing recommendation and the county building official has not responded, does the combination of owner inaction and regulatory non-response independently require Engineer A to escalate to additional authorities, and how does the non-imminent nature of the risk calibrate that obligation?
Engineer A's ongoing obligations when the building owners decline to implement the recommended bracing, and whether that refusal — combined with the county building official's non-response — independently triggers a duty to escalate to additional authorities
Document the owners' refusal to implement bracing in writing, advise the owners in writing of the continued structural risk and their responsibility for it, and immediately escalate in writing to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal — treating the combination of owner refusal and official non-response as exhausting all direct remedies and requiring multi-agency regulatory escalation
Re-engage Client B and the building owners collaboratively to pursue voluntary remediation — including commissioning a definitive structural evaluation and presenting its findings to the owners — before escalating to supervisory regulatory authorities, treating the owners' initial refusal as a starting point for negotiation rather than a final determination
Treat the owners' refusal as a property owner's exercise of authority over their own building in the context of a non-imminent risk, document the refusal and Engineer A's recommendation in writing for Engineer A's own records, and limit further action to a written follow-up to the county building official — without escalating to supervisory or alternative regulatory authorities absent evidence that the risk has become more imminent
Does the Written Documentation Requirement for safety notifications conflict with the Proportional Escalation Obligation for non-imminent risks, or does written documentation represent the baseline minimum standard of care whenever a verbal notification has been ignored — regardless of the risk's imminence?
Whether the Written Documentation Requirement for safety notifications is the proportionate and minimum-standard tool for non-imminent structural risks, or whether it conflicts with the Proportional Escalation Obligation by imposing a disproportionate formality on a hazard that is real but not immediate
Send written confirmation of the structural concern to the county building official immediately following the unanswered phone call, documenting the preliminary findings, the prior verbal contact, and the request for a response — treating written follow-up as the baseline minimum standard of care whenever a verbal safety notification has been ignored, regardless of the risk's imminence
Prepare a written structural safety memorandum for Engineer A's own records documenting the preliminary findings, the verbal notifications to Client B and the county building official, and the unanswered call — treating internal documentation as sufficient to preserve Engineer A's professional record while deferring external written escalation until a definitive structural evaluation is available
Treat the verbal phone call to the county building official as proportionate to the non-imminent nature of the risk, and limit written documentation to the fire investigation report delivered to Client B — which notes the structural observations as a finding — without separately memorializing the safety concern in a written communication directed to the county building official or other regulatory authorities
Decision Not to Further Escalate → Collapse Risk Remains Unmitigated
Engineer A Actionable Bracing Guidance Building Owners
Engineer A identified structural instability with risk of roof collapse and wall failure; Engineer A recommended to the building owners that they brace the building to prevent collapse.
Actionable Remedial Guidance to Property Owner Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to provide the building owners with specific, actionable remedial guidance — recommending bracing to prevent collapse — rather than merely disclosing the existence of the structural risk, so that the owners had the information necessary to take protective action.
Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
Upon identification of structural instability and assessment of collapse risk
Engineer A Actionable Bracing Guidance Building Owners Individual
Actionable Structural Remediation Guidance Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to formulate and communicate specific, actionable remedial guidance to the building owners — recommending bracing to prevent collapse — that was proportionate to the assessed non-imminent but real collapse risk and technically sound given the preliminary nature of the investigation.
Engineer A provided the building owners with specific actionable guidance (bracing recommendation) as an interim protective measure pending full structural assessment and permanent repair.
Recommendation to building owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse, based on preliminary assessment of roof sag, wall lean, and insufficient lateral restraint.
Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification
A decision was made to install two crutch piles and reopen the bridge with a five-ton limit without follow-up inspection; Engineer A observed significant bridge movement and weight limit violations.
Crutch Pile Adequacy Verification Collaborative Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the original inspection report to determine whether the two-crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be structurally adequate, and to report those findings to the supervisor.
Engineer A also should have worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two-crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
Upon observing the crutch pile remediation and weight limit violations
Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation
The bridge was reopened with a five-ton limit but Engineer A observed log trucks and tankers crossing regularly while school buses went around; Engineer A failed to press for enforcement.
Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to immediately press the supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit upon observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of the restriction.
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
Upon observing weight limit violations by log trucks and tankers
Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing as well as significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint
Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing with significant movement of the bridge, including log trucks and tankers crossing regularly in violation of the five-ton limit, while school buses went around the bridge.
Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint
Engineer A was required to immediately press the supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit upon observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of that restriction, and if that escalation was ineffective, to escalate to state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
Upon observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of the five-ton limit
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and other such authorities as appropriate.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Imminent Widespread Bridge Collapse Full-Bore Campaign
A 280-foot bridge 30 feet above a stream with rotten pilings was reopened with inadequate crutch pile remediation and no follow-up inspection; weight limit violations were observed; Engineer A failed to pursue full-bore escalation.
Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities given the imminent and widespread nature of the bridge collapse risk.
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
Upon observing the inadequate remediation, weight limit violations, and significant bridge movement
By failing to take this action, Engineer A had ignored his basic professional and ethical obligations.
the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation.
Engineer A (BER 00-5) Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Local government', 'specialty': 'Bridge/transportation infrastructure'}
Local government engineer responsible for a deteriorating bridge who ordered closure, faced public pressure and non-engineer supervisor override, and had obligations to escalate to multiple authorities and report unlicensed bridge inspection practice.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Local Government (BER 00-5)'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Consulting Engineering Firm (BER 00-5)'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'County Commission (BER 00-5)'}
{'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Non-Engineer Public Works Director (BER 00-5)'}
Engineer A worked for a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge
Engineer A explained the extent of the damage and the efforts underway to replace the bridge
Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon
Engineer A BER 00-5 Multi-Precedent Structural Safety Duty Synthesis
Multi-Precedent Public Safety Duty Synthesis Capability
The BER synthesized BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6 to establish that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety at the core of engineering ethics, and applied that synthesized framework to determine the full-bore escalation obligations.
BER reviewed earlier cases 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6 to establish the normative framework for Engineer A's obligations in BER Case 00-5
BER synthesis of multiple precedent cases to establish the paramount duty framework applicable to imminent bridge collapse scenario
Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Resistance Full-Bore Escalation
A non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector (not an engineer) to examine the bridge and decided to install crutch piles and reopen with a five-ton limit without follow-up inspection; Engineer A failed to take the required escalation steps.
Non-Engineer Safety Override Resistance and Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to resist the non-engineer public works director's override of the bridge closure and to escalate immediately to supervisors, state/federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
Upon observing the non-engineer override and inadequate remediation
Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Resistance Full-Bore Escalation Constraint
A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and install two crutch piles, then reopen the bridge with a five-ton limit — overriding Engineer A's professional safety determination.
Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from acquiescing to the non-engineer public works director's decision to have a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and install crutch piles, and was required to resist that override by escalating immediately to supervisors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6; BER Case 00-5
Following non-engineer public works director's decision to install crutch piles and reopen bridge with five-ton limit
Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation
Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation Recognition Capability
Engineer A, as an employee of the local government with specific responsibility for the bridge, was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the imminent bridge collapse risk, including pursuing a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign.
Engineer A was a local government employee with specific assigned responsibility for the deteriorating bridge
Recognition that public employment with specific infrastructure responsibility amplified the professional obligation to pursue full-bore escalation
in BER Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Non-Subordination Bridge Closure
Engineer A ordered bridge closure due to rotten pilings; a rally was held and a petition with 200 signatures was presented to the County Commission requesting reopening; Engineer A explained the damage and the County Commission supported the closure.
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to maintain the bridge closure determination against the petition of 200 signatures and the public rally, and to explain the technical basis for the closure to the County Commission.
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
During the period of organized public pressure for bridge reopening
Engineer A explained the extent of the damage and the efforts underway to replace the bridge.
For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Non-Subordination Bridge Closure Constraint
A rally was held and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission, creating public pressure on Engineer A to relax the safety closure determination.
Public Pressure Safety Determination Non-Subordination Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from subordinating the professionally grounded bridge closure determination to the petition of approximately 200 signatures and the public rally requesting reopening of the bridge to limited traffic — the paramount obligation to public safety was non-negotiable regardless of the intensity of public opposition.
Following public rally and petition to reopen bridge
Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination Reporting
A non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector who was not a licensed engineer to examine the bridge; the inspector's assessment was used to justify reopening the bridge with crutch piles.
Unlicensed Engineering Assessment Determination and Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending installation of crutch piles — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering under applicable state law, and if so, to report those activities to the state engineering licensure board.
Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
Upon learning that the retired bridge inspector had examined the bridge and that the assessment was used to justify reopening
A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination Reporting Constraint
A non-engineer public works director engaged a retired bridge inspector who was not a licensed engineer to examine the bridge and make structural recommendations, potentially constituting unlicensed engineering practice.
Unlicensed Inspector Engineering Assessment Reporting Constraint
Engineer A was required to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending installation of crutch piles — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and if so, to report that individual to the state engineering licensure board.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; state engineering practice acts
Following non-engineer public works director's engagement of retired bridge inspector
Engineer A BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice Determination
Unlicensed Practice Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending installation of crutch piles — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and to report that determination to the state engineering licensure board if warranted.
Non-engineer public works director had a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and recommend crutch pile installation without engineering licensure
Assessment of whether a retired non-engineer bridge inspector's structural recommendations crossed the threshold into unlicensed engineering practice
Engineer A BER 07-10 Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to review the matter but took no action; Engineer A did not set a deadline or escalate to county or state building officials.
Deadline-Conditioned Escalation to Higher Building Authority Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, if appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period, to again contact the town supervisor in writing with a specific deadline and notice that failure to act would require escalation to county or state building officials.
If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken to adequately address the situation within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
After a reasonable period following the initial verbal notification to the town supervisor without corrective action
Engineer A BER 07-10 New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor
Engineer A learned of structural modifications to a barn sold to Jones and verbally contacted the town supervisor but did not first notify Jones of the structural concerns.
New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to first notify the current owner (Jones) of the perceived structural deficiency in the barn before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, so that the owner had the opportunity to take voluntary protective action.
it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
Upon learning of the structural modifications and before or contemporaneously with contacting the town supervisor
Engineer A should have also notified the new owner about the perceived deficiency in writing.
Engineer A (BER 07-10) Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural design', 'relationship_to_property': 'Former owner and original designer'}
Engineer who originally designed a barn, sold the property, later learned of structural modifications by the new owner that may create collapse risk under snow loads, and had obligations to notify the new owner and town supervisor in writing and escalate if no action taken.
{'type': 'notified', 'target': 'Town Supervisor (BER 07-10)'}
{'type': 'prior_client', 'target': 'Jones (BER 07-10) New Property Owner'}
Engineer A had designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken
Engineer A BER 07-10 Proportional Escalation Non-Imminent Barn Collapse
Engineer A learned of structural modifications to a barn that may create collapse risk under snow loads; the risk was significant but not as imminent or widespread as the bridge collapse risk in BER 00-5.
Proportional Escalation Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the escalation response to the non-imminent but significant nature of the barn structural risk — pursuing a limited but multi-step escalation (notify owner, notify town supervisor in writing, set deadline, escalate to county/state officials if needed) rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
the danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
Upon learning of the structural modifications and assessing the risk profile
the limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response.
the prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction—in writing.
Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Record and Follow-Up Confirmation
Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
Engineer A was required to make a written record of communications with the owner and town supervisor, follow up the verbal communication with written confirmation to the town supervisor restating concerns, and continue to monitor the situation.
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to review the matter but no action was taken
BER determination that verbal notification to town supervisor was insufficient and required written follow-up confirmation
Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns, while continuing to monitor the situation.
Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Record and Follow-Up Confirmation Obligation
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to review the matter but took no action; Engineer A did not follow up in writing or make a written record of communications.
Post-Verbal-Notification Written Structural Safety Confirmation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to make a written record of communications with the owner and town supervisor, follow up the verbal communication with written confirmation to the town supervisor restating the concerns, and continue monitoring the situation.
After verbal notification to the town supervisor
Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification Structural Deficiency
The county building official had issued a certificate of occupancy following construction modifications that Engineer A determined may have caused the structural instability; Engineer A called the county building official to report the hazard.
Engineer A was obligated to notify the county building official — who had issued the certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications — of the newly identified structural safety concern, recognizing that the issuing authority bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use.
Upon determination that the structural deficiency arose from post-occupancy-approval modifications
Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification Structural Deficiency Individual
Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the county building official — who had issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications — was the appropriate regulatory party to notify of the newly discovered structural deficiency, and initiated contact with that specific authority.
Engineer A learned that the building had been issued a certificate of occupancy following construction modifications, and correctly identified the county building official as the appropriate authority to notify of the structural deficiency.
Calling the county building official upon discovering structural instability in a building that had received a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications.
Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion Safety Duty Constraint
The county building official had issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications that Engineer A concluded caused structural deficiency — roof sag and outward wall lean — yet Engineer A remained obligated to notify the issuing authority.
Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Duty Constraint
The prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the county building official following structural modifications did not preclude or discharge Engineer A's independent duty to report the subsequently discovered structural safety deficiency to the issuing authority and affected property owners.
Upon discovery of structural deficiency in building with existing certificate of occupancy
Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion Safety Duty Fire Investigation
Building received certificate of occupancy following structural modifications; Engineer A discovers structural deficiency
The prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the county building official following structural modifications did not preclude or discharge Engineer A's independent duty to report the subsequently discovered structural safety deficiency to the issuing authority.
Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Bar Structural Disclosure County Official
Engineer A was retained by Client B under a professional services relationship; Engineer A disclosed the structural hazard to the county building official without Client B's explicit authorization, consistent with the principle that confidentiality does not bar public danger disclosure.
Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Obligation
Engineer A's disclosure of the structural instability to the county building official was not barred by client confidentiality obligations, because the structural safety concern — even if non-imminent — constituted a public danger that pre-empted any confidentiality obligation to Client B.
Upon determination that the structural instability posed a public danger
Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Bar Structural Disclosure County Official Individual
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Assessment Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly assess that client confidentiality obligations did not bar disclosure of the structural instability to the county building official, because the disclosure involved apparent danger to the public interest rather than the client's technical processes or business affairs.
Engineer A was retained by Client B but correctly determined that confidentiality did not bar notification of the county building official regarding the structural safety risk.
Engineer A notified the county building official of the structural hazard despite being retained by Client B, correctly recognizing that confidentiality did not apply to public safety disclosures.
Engineer A Corrective Action Proportionality Non-Imminent Collapse
Non-imminent structural collapse risk requiring proportionate graduated escalation
Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Constraint
Engineer A was required to calibrate the scope and intensity of corrective action to the non-imminent but real nature of the structural collapse risk — pursuing graduated escalation (client notification, county building official notification, written follow-up, supervisor escalation) rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for imminent, widespread dangers.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10; BER Case 00-5
Throughout the escalation process following discovery of structural instability
Engineer A Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Calibration Current Case
Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Self-Determination Capability
Engineer A was required to determine how far the obligation to seek corrective action extended after pointing out the structural safety concern to Client B and contacting the county building official, recognizing that the obligation was not discharged by a single unanswered phone call.
Engineer A had notified Client B and called the county building official who did not return the call, requiring assessment of further obligations
Professional judgment about the scope of continued pursuit after initial disclosure steps proved insufficient
professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
Here, Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call.
Engineer A Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Current Case Constraint
Engineer A's structural safety concern was assessed as non-imminent, requiring proportionate graduated escalation rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required in BER Case 00-5 where the bridge collapse risk was both imminent and potentially widespread.
Engineer A was required to calibrate the scope and intensity of corrective action pursuit to the non-imminent but real nature of the structural safety concern — pursuing graduated escalation through the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, and other agencies with jurisdiction — rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for imminent, widespread dangers such as the bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
Following identification of non-imminent structural safety concern and county building official non-response
the BER concluded that in BER Case 07-10, the limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response.
Engineer A Current Case Actionable Bracing Guidance Building Owners
Engineer A was required to provide the building owners with specific, actionable remedial guidance — recommending bracing to prevent collapse — that was proportionate to the assessed risk level and sufficient to enable the owners to take immediate protective action pending full structural assessment.
Engineer A observed structural instability and recommended bracing to building owners who had recently made structural modifications
Recommendation to building owners to brace the building to prevent collapse
Engineer A was obligated to provide the building owners with specific, actionable remedial guidance — recommending bracing to prevent collapse
Engineer A Current Case Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification
The county building official had issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications to the building; Engineer A called the official but the call was not returned; the obligation to notify the issuing authority persisted and required escalation.
Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification After Structural Modification Discovery Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to notify the county building official — who had issued the certificate of occupancy following structural modifications — of the newly identified structural safety concern, recognizing that the official who granted occupancy approval bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use.
Upon identifying the structural safety concern and learning that a certificate of occupancy had been issued following modifications
Engineer A Current Case Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Calibration
Engineer A identified structural instability, notified Client B and the county building official, but did not pursue further escalation after the official failed to respond.
Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Determination Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to determine how far the obligation to seek corrective action extended after pointing out the structural safety concern to Client B and the county building official, and to pursue escalation commensurate with the non-imminent but real risk profile.
After initial notification to Client B and county building official
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Forensic building investigation'}
Engineer retained by Client B to conduct forensic investigation of a building (fire origin/cause or structural assessment), who observed structural hazards, notified Client B and the county building official (who did not return calls), and had obligations to escalate to the county official's supervisor, fire marshal, and other authorities having jurisdiction.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client B Building Safety Investigation Client'}
{'type': 'escalation_target', 'target': 'Fire Marshal'}
{'type': 'escalation_target', 'target': 'Supervisor of County Building Official'}
{'type': 'notified', 'target': 'County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority'}
Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B
contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
Engineer A Current Case Non-Imminent Structural Risk Client Collaboration
Engineer A identified non-imminent structural instability and notified Client B, but the obligation to continue collaborative pursuit of resolution with the client persisted alongside regulatory escalation duties.
Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Client Collaboration Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to continue working collaboratively with Client B to pursue resolution of the structural safety concern alongside escalation to regulatory authorities.
Ongoing after initial notification to Client B
Engineer A Current Case Post-Unresponsive-County-Official Multi-Agency Escalation
Engineer A retained for fire origin/cause investigation observed structural instability, notified Client B and called the county building official who did not return the call; Engineer A did not escalate further.
Post-Unresponsive-Official Supervisor and Multi-Agency Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, after the county building official failed to return the phone call, to escalate the structural safety concern to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Upon failure of the county building official to return Engineer A's phone call
Engineer A Current Case Proportional Escalation Non-Imminent Building Structural Risk
Engineer A assessed the building structural instability as not presenting an imminent collapse risk but as a real and significant concern requiring continued escalation beyond the unanswered phone call to the county building official.
Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the escalation response to the non-imminent but real nature of the building structural risk — pursuing escalation to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, and other agencies having jurisdiction — rather than either stopping at the initial unanswered phone call or pursuing a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
After the county building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call
Engineer A Current Case Scope-of-Work Non-Shield Structural Disclosure
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that the contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose the incidentally observed structural instability to Client B and the county building official.
Engineer A was retained for fire origin and cause investigation but observed structural instability outside that contracted scope
Recognition that fire investigation scope did not limit the obligation to report structural safety concerns observed during the investigation
The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding value in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Immediate Client Notification Structural Hazard
Engineer A was retained by Client B; upon discovering structural instability during the fire investigation, Engineer A immediately advised Client B before taking further action.
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Without Investigation Obligation
Engineer A, as faithful agent of Client B, was obligated to immediately advise Client B of the observed structural instability and preliminary findings regarding the cause of the roof sag and wall lean.
Immediately upon discovery of structural instability
Engineer A Faithful Agent Immediate Client Notification Structural Hazard Individual
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Scope Calibration Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly calibrate the faithful agent obligation upon discovering structural instability — recognizing the duty to immediately advise Client B of the identified structural risk without expanding the contracted scope of work or conducting a full independent structural investigation.
Engineer A, as faithful agent of Client B, immediately notified the client of the structural hazard discovered during the fire investigation engagement.
Immediate advisement of Client B upon observing structural instability and completing preliminary assessment, without overstepping contracted scope.
Engineer A Fire Investigation Engagement
From hire through completion of investigation
Engineer A retained by Client B for fire origin and cause investigation
Client B hires Engineer A to investigate fire origin and cause
Engineer A Fire Investigation Scope Non-Shield Structural Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A retained for fire origin and cause investigation discovered structural instability — roof sag and outward wall lean — caused by recent structural modifications, which fell outside the contracted forensic scope.
Forensic Scope Boundary Non-Exculpation for Structural Safety Defect Constraint
Engineer A's contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield Engineer A from the obligation to disclose the structural instability discovered incidentally during the investigation to Client B and relevant authorities.
Upon discovery of structural instability during fire investigation engagement
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural Engineering and Forensic Investigation', 'dual_scope': 'Fire investigation (contracted) and structural safety assessment (incidental)'}
Retained by Client B to investigate fire origin and cause; independently observed structural instability; reported hazard to client and county building official; recommended bracing to building owners
{'type': 'advised', 'target': 'Building Owners Safety Recommendation Recipients'}
{'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Client B Building Safety Investigation Client'}
Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building
Engineer A Forensic Scope-Exceeding Structural Discovery
From the moment Engineer A observes structural instability through notification of Client B and county building official
During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
Forensic Scope-Exceeding Structural Safety Discovery State
Engineer A's discovery of structural instability while conducting a fire investigation
Notification to Client B and county building official; recommendation to brace the building
Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
Engineer A observes structural instability in the building while conducting the fire investigation
Engineer A Forensic Scope Non-Exculpation Structural Disclosure Fire Investigation
Engineer A retained for fire investigation discovers structural instability outside contracted scope
Engineer A's contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield Engineer A from the obligation to disclose the structural instability discovered during the investigation, requiring disclosure to Client B and the county building official regardless of the contracted scope boundary.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case precedent on scope limitation non-exculpation
Upon discovery of structural instability during fire investigation
Engineer A Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County Building Official Non-Response
County building official fails to return Engineer A's phone call; graduated escalation obligation triggered
Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
Engineer A, having called the county building official who failed to return the call, was required to follow a graduated escalation pathway: (1) follow up with written confirmation, (2) set a specific reasonable deadline for corrective action, (3) notify the official in writing that failure to act within the deadline will require escalation to higher authorities, and (4) escalate to county or state building officials if the deadline passes without adequate action.
Following county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call
Engineer A Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Current Case Constraint
The county building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural safety concern, triggering Engineer A's obligation to pursue graduated deadline-conditioned escalation rather than treating non-response as a discharge of the reporting obligation.
Engineer A was required to follow up the verbal notification to the county building official with written confirmation, set a specific reasonable deadline for corrective action, notify the official in writing that failure to act within the deadline would require escalation to higher authorities, and escalate to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction if the deadline passed without adequate action.
Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Fire Investigation
Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly calibrate the escalation response to a non-imminent structural collapse risk — pursuing a proportionate, graduated multi-step response (client notification, county official contact, owner bracing recommendation) rather than a full-bore multi-authority emergency campaign appropriate for imminent risk.
Engineer A calibrated the escalation scope to the non-imminent nature of the assessed collapse risk, consistent with BER precedent distinguishing imminent from non-imminent risk responses.
Graduated response to non-imminent collapse risk: immediate client advisement, phone call to county building official, and bracing recommendation to owners — proportionate to the assessed risk level.
Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Threshold Discrimination Fire Investigation
Imminent Versus Potential Risk Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly distinguish between an imminent collapse risk and a real but non-imminent collapse risk, and to calibrate the response proportionately — advising the client, contacting the county building official, and recommending bracing, rather than triggering a full emergency response.
Engineer A assessed the structural collapse risk as real but not imminent and calibrated the response accordingly.
Assessment that collapse was 'a danger' but 'not imminent,' followed by proportionate multi-step response including client notification, regulatory contact, and remedial guidance rather than emergency evacuation or immediate full structural investigation.
Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation Calibration Current Case
Engineer A was required to calibrate the escalation response to the non-imminent but real nature of the building structural risk — pursuing escalation to the supervisor of the county official and the fire marshal rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign — consistent with the proportionate response framework established in BER Case 07-10.
Engineer A observed structural instability during fire investigation and assessed the risk as non-imminent, requiring calibrated rather than full-bore escalation
Assessment that the building was not in danger of imminent collapse, leading to a proportionate rather than full-bore escalation response
Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter
Engineer A Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Fire Investigation
Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize, upon incidental observation during a contracted fire investigation, that structural instability observed outside the contracted scope constituted a safety deficiency triggering professional disclosure and notification obligations.
Engineer A was lawfully present at the building for fire investigation purposes and upon incidental observation identified structural instability as a safety deficiency outside the contracted scope.
Recognition of structural instability during fire investigation; classification of the condition as a genuine risk to public health, safety, or welfare; initiation of notification to client and county building official.
Engineer A Incidental Structural Observation Disclosure Fire Investigation
Engineer A was retained by Client B to investigate fire origin and cause; during the investigation, Engineer A observed structural instability including roof sag and outward-leaning walls due to insufficient lateral restraint following construction modifications.
Incidental Observation Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A, retained for fire origin and cause investigation but also a licensed structural engineer, was obligated upon observing structural instability to disclose that safety risk to the client, building owners, and county building official, notwithstanding the fire investigation scope of the contract.
Upon observation of structural instability during the fire investigation
Engineer A Multi-Credential Incidental Observation Competence Activation Fire Investigation
Multi-Credential Incidental Observation Competence Activation Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that an incidental observation made during a fire origin and cause investigation activated professional competence and disclosure obligations from a second domain — structural engineering — and correctly applied structural engineering competencies to assess and communicate the observed structural instability risk.
Engineer A held credentials in both fire investigation and structural engineering, and upon observing structural instability during the contracted fire investigation, activated structural engineering competence to assess and report the risk.
Recognition that structural instability observed during fire investigation triggered structural engineering obligations; performance of preliminary structural assessment; notification of client and county building official; recommendation to brace building.
Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable.
Engineer A Multi-Credential Structural Competence Activation Fire Investigation
Engineer A was retained for fire investigation but also held structural engineering credentials; upon observing structural instability, Engineer A performed a preliminary structural investigation and concluded that construction modifications had caused roof sag and wall lean due to insufficient lateral restraint.
Multi-Credential Incidental Observation Competence Activation Obligation
Engineer A, holding both fire investigation and structural engineering credentials, was obligated upon observing structural instability during the fire investigation to activate structural engineering competence, evaluate the condition against applicable safety standards, and act on that evaluation.
Engineer A Multi-Credential Structural Competence Activation Fire Investigation Constraint
Engineer A's dual credentials in fire investigation and structural engineering meant that the structural instability observed during the fire investigation triggered an obligation to assess and disclose the risk using structural engineering competence.
Multi-Credential Competence Activation Safety Constraint
Engineer A, holding both fire investigation and structural engineering credentials, could not disclaim competence-based awareness of the structural instability observed during the fire investigation by reference to the contracted forensic scope, and was required to apply structural engineering knowledge to assess and disclose the safety risk.
NSPE Code of Ethics; competence and scope provisions
Upon observation of structural instability during fire investigation
Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation
Engineer A notified both Client B and the county building official, and also recommended to the building owners that they brace the structure; the building owners had recently made structural changes to the building.
Engineer A was obligated to notify the current building owners of the structural deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying the county building official, recognizing that the owners are the parties most immediately affected by the risk and most capable of taking prompt protective action.
Upon identification of structural instability
Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Current Case Constraint
Engineer A identified a structural safety deficiency in a building owned by Client B and was obligated to notify Client B before or in conjunction with notifying the county building official, consistent with the priority notification principle established in BER Case 07-10.
New Property Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Constraint
Engineer A was required to notify the current building owners of the structural deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying the county building official, establishing that the property owners' direct interest in the safety of their own building created a priority notification right that preceded or accompanied official escalation.
Upon identification of structural deficiency in building owned by Client B
Engineer A Non-Imminent Collapse Proportionate Response Calibration
Engineer A assessed the structural collapse risk as non-imminent but real, and responded by advising Client B, calling the county building official, and recommending bracing to the building owners.
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Proportionate Response Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the response to the non-imminent but real structural collapse risk proportionately — advising the client, notifying the county building official, and providing actionable remedial guidance to the building owners — without triggering a maximum-emergency multi-authority campaign disproportionate to the non-imminent risk.
Upon assessment of non-imminent but real collapse risk
Engineer A Non-Imminent Structural Risk Client Collaboration Current Case
Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Client Collaboration Capability
Engineer A was required to continue working collaboratively with Client B to pursue resolution of the structural safety concern alongside escalation to the supervisor of the county official and the fire marshal, recognizing that client collaboration and regulatory escalation are complementary obligations.
Engineer A identified non-imminent structural risk and was required to pursue resolution through both client collaboration and regulatory escalation
Obligation to maintain collaborative engagement with Client B while simultaneously pursuing regulatory escalation pathways
Engineer A Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Structural Hazard
Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the county building official's failure to return the phone call did not discharge the professional obligation to pursue corrective action, and to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials or alternative regulatory bodies until the safety concern was adequately addressed.
Engineer A's initial regulatory contact went unanswered, requiring persistent escalation beyond the unresponsive official.
The county building official's non-response created the obligation to persist in escalation — the capability to recognize and fulfill this obligation is implicated by the case facts.
Engineer A Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive County Official Constraint
The county building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural safety concern, triggering Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond the unresponsive official rather than treating non-response as a discharge of the reporting obligation.
Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Constraint
Engineer A could not treat the county building official's failure to return the phone call as a complete discharge of the safety reporting obligation, and was required to escalate to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted.
Engineer A Post-Unresponsive-County-Official Supervisor Fire Marshal Escalation Current Case
Post-Unresponsive-Official Multi-Agency Escalation Pathway Navigation Capability
Engineer A was required, after the county building official failed to return the phone call, to escalate the structural safety concern to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
County building official failed to return Engineer A's phone call regarding structural hazard discovered during fire investigation
Recognition that a single unanswered phone call to the county building official did not discharge the professional obligation to pursue corrective action
Engineer A Post-Unresponsive-Official Escalation County Building Official
The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural hazard; Engineer A had not yet escalated to higher authorities.
Engineer A, having called the county building official who failed to return the call, was obligated to escalate the structural safety concern to the county building official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies having jurisdiction, rather than treating the unanswered phone call as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
Following the county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call within a reasonable period
Engineer A Post-Unresponsive-Official Multi-Agency Escalation Pathway Navigation Individual
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the county building official's failure to return the phone call did not discharge the professional obligation, and to identify and navigate the appropriate escalation pathway — including contacting the supervisor of the unresponsive official and other agencies having jurisdiction — to ensure the structural safety concern received authoritative attention.
Engineer A's initial contact with the county building official went unanswered, requiring identification and navigation of escalation pathways to supervisory officials and other agencies with jurisdiction.
The county building official's non-response to Engineer A's phone call created the obligation to escalate — the capability to identify and pursue this escalation pathway is implicated by the case facts.
Engineer A Post-Verbal-Notification Written Follow-Up County Official Non-Response
Engineer A called the county building official to report the structural hazard; the county building official did not return the call; Engineer A had not yet followed up in writing or escalated to higher authorities.
Post-Verbal-Notification Written Confirmation and Monitoring Obligation
Engineer A, having verbally contacted the county building official who did not return the call, was obligated to follow up with written confirmation of the structural safety concern, make a written record of all communications, and continue monitoring the situation with escalation to higher authorities if appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period.
Following the county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call
Engineer A Post-Verbal-Notification Written Follow-Up County Official Non-Response Individual
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that verbal notification to the county building official — who did not return the phone call — was insufficient to discharge the professional obligation, and that written follow-up confirmation was required to create a documented record and establish the basis for further escalation.
Engineer A called the county building official who failed to return the call, triggering the obligation to follow up in writing and escalate if necessary.
The case facts establish that Engineer A called the county building official who did not return the call, creating the obligation for written follow-up — the capability to recognize and fulfill this obligation is implicated by the facts.
Engineer A Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Client B
Engineer A identifies non-imminent structural collapse risk and advises Client B
Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Without Investigation Constraint
Engineer A was required to advise Client B in writing of the observed structural instability and preliminary findings — including the risk of roof sag and outward wall lean — without being obligated to conduct a full structural investigation beyond the preliminary assessment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4 and III.1.b
Immediately upon identification of structural instability
Engineer A Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Constraint
Engineer A identified a potential structural collapse risk and was obligated to notify Client B in writing, though the obligation did not require Engineer A to conduct a full structural investigation beyond the preliminary assessment.
Engineer A was required to advise Client B in writing of the identified structural instability risk — roof sag and outward wall lean — while this notification obligation did not extend to a duty to investigate the risk further or recommend specific mitigation alternatives beyond the preliminary finding.
NSPE Code Sections I.4 and III.1.b; BER Case analysis
Upon identification of structural instability during fire investigation
Engineer A Preliminary Structural Assessment Epistemic Qualification Disclosure
Engineer A conducts preliminary structural investigation and discloses findings to client and county building official
Preliminary Structural Assessment Disclosure With Epistemic Qualification Constraint
Engineer A, having conducted only a preliminary structural investigation, was required to disclose the identified structural instability to Client B and the county building official while explicitly qualifying the disclosure as based on preliminary professional judgment — prohibiting both silence and overstatement of certainty.
Upon completion of preliminary structural investigation
Engineer A Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment Fire Investigation
Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed advanced structural engineering competence enabling preliminary field assessment of building structural instability — including identification of roof sagging, outward wall lean, and insufficient lateral restraint — during a fire origin and cause investigation, and formation of a professional judgment that collapse was a real but non-imminent danger.
Engineer A was retained for fire origin and cause investigation but also held structural engineering credentials, enabling activation of structural competence upon observing instability indicators during the contracted engagement.
Observation of structural instability during fire investigation, preliminary investigation of building, conclusion that recent structural changes caused roof sag and wall lean due to insufficient lateral restraint, and assessment that collapse was a danger though not imminent.
Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Structural Hazard Fire Investigation
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the identified structural collapse risk exceeded the client relationship and required escalation to the county building official as the appropriate regulatory authority, and to act on that recognition by initiating contact with the official.
Engineer A recognized that the structural safety risk required escalation beyond the client relationship to the regulatory authority responsible for building safety.
Calling the county building official upon identifying structural instability, in addition to notifying Client B.
Engineer A Scope-of-Work Non-Shield Structural Disclosure Fire Investigation
Engineer A was retained for fire investigation only; the structural instability was outside the contracted scope; Engineer A nonetheless disclosed the structural hazard to the client, building official, and building owners.
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose the structural instability observed during the investigation, and to act on that observation consistent with public welfare obligations.
Engineer A Scope-of-Work Non-Shield Structural Disclosure Fire Investigation Individual
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the contractual scope of work — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose and act upon the structural safety concern observed incidentally during the contracted engagement.
Engineer A's contracted scope was fire investigation, but upon observing structural instability, correctly recognized that scope limitation did not extinguish the professional obligation to disclose and act on the structural safety concern.
Despite being retained only for fire origin and cause investigation, Engineer A performed a preliminary structural assessment, notified the client, contacted the county building official, and recommended bracing to the building owners.
Engineer A Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation Structural Safety Fire Case Constraint
Engineer A was retained for fire origin and cause investigation but observed structural instability — roof sag and outward wall lean — that fell outside the contracted scope, yet remained obligated to disclose the safety risk.
Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation for Known Safety Risk Constraint
Engineer A's contracted scope of fire origin and cause investigation did not exculpate or excuse Engineer A from disclosing the structural instability observed incidentally during the investigation — the scope boundary constrained Engineer A's obligation to remediate the deficiency but did not constrain the obligation to disclose it.
NSPE Code of Ethics; scope and safety provisions
Throughout the fire investigation engagement
Engineer A Verbal-Only Notification Written Follow-Up County Building Official
Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
Engineer A, having made only a verbal (phone call) notification to the county building official who failed to return the call, was required to follow up that verbal notification with written documentation of the structural safety concern — prohibiting reliance on the unanswered phone call alone as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation.
Engineer A Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Current Case Constraint
Engineer A verbally contacted the county building official regarding the structural safety concern but the official did not return the call, requiring written follow-up to create a documented record and ensure the notification was formally communicated.
Engineer A's verbal contact with the county building official — who did not return the call — was insufficient as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation, requiring Engineer A to follow up with written documentation of the structural safety concern.
Following verbal contact with county building official who did not return the call
Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns.
Engineer A Written Third-Party Safety Notification Building Owners
Engineer A verbally recommended to the building owners that they brace the building to prevent collapse; the case does not indicate that this recommendation was made in writing.
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to notify the building owners in writing about the structural deficiency — in addition to any verbal recommendation to brace the building — so that the affected parties had a documented record of the risk and could take informed protective action.
Upon identification of structural instability and recommendation to building owners
Engineer A Written Third-Party Safety Notification Building Owners Individual
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the professional obligation to notify the building owners in writing about the structural deficiency — beyond the verbal recommendation to brace — ensuring that the at-risk parties had documented, actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures.
Engineer A provided a verbal bracing recommendation to the building owners, with the professional obligation to follow up in writing to create a documented record of the safety notification.
Engineer A recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent collapse; the obligation to provide this in writing is implicated by the case facts and professional ethics standards.
Engineer A learning of barn extension before Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor
Engineer A's notification of Client B and county official before recommendation to brace the building
Engineer A's preliminary structural investigation before verbal notification to Client B
Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor (BER 07-10) before town supervisor's inaction
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer A when deciding how to respond to unresponsive county building official
Governs Engineer A's duty to escalate the structural safety concern beyond the client to the county building official, and the question of what further obligations arise when the official fails to respond
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional engineering community
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (Professional Norm)
professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's continuing obligations after Client B and the county building official failed to respond adequately
The operative professional norm governing how far an engineer's obligation to seek corrective action reaches when a client or authority fails to act on a reported safety concern, including graduated escalation through multiple authorities
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
Engineer A after recommending structural bracing to building owners
Governs Engineer A's obligations after recommending bracing to prevent collapse, including documentation of the recommendation and determination of whether the client's or official's inaction creates a public safety threat requiring further escalation
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer A To Client B
Public welfare paramount (client notification alone is insufficient)
Engineer A, as faithful agent of Client B, immediately advised Client B of the observed structural instability and preliminary findings regarding the cause of the roof sag and wall lean, fulfilling the faithful agent obligation to advise the client of identified risks even outside the contracted scope
The faithful agent relationship required Engineer A to advise Client B of the structural hazard discovered during the fire investigation, even though the structural assessment was outside the contracted scope, because the hazard affected Client B's property interests
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
Faithful agent notification obligation is satisfied by advising Client B, but does not discharge the broader public welfare obligation to notify regulatory authorities and building owners
Fire Occurs at Building → Structural Instability Discovered
Graduated Escalation Calibration - Current Case vs BER 00-5
From Engineer A's initial notification through determination of appropriate escalation level
Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
Engineer A's obligation to calibrate escalation response to the intermediate severity of the structural safety concern
Appropriate escalation pathway identified and pursued
Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter.
The limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response.
Engineer A identified structural concern not rising to imminent collapse level, requiring calibrated rather than full-bore escalation response
Graduated Escalation Obligation — Non-Imminent Structural Collapse
From county building official's non-response through resolution of structural safety concern
Engineer A must calibrate escalation response to non-imminent but real structural collapse risk after county building official fails to respond
Appropriate authority responds and takes action, or Engineer A escalates to supervisor or other agencies with jurisdiction
County building official fails to return Engineer A's call, leaving non-imminent structural risk unaddressed
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Applied in Current Case
Engineer A, retained for fire origin/cause investigation, independently observed structural instability outside the contracted scope and disclosed it to Client B and the county building official, fulfilling the initial disclosure obligation but not yet the full escalation obligation
The disclosure obligation applies to safety-relevant observations outside contracted scope; Engineer A correctly made the initial disclosure but was required to continue escalating when the county official failed to respond
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
The disclosure obligation overrides contractual scope limitations when a material safety risk is identified
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
Structural instability observed during fire investigation
Engineer A, while conducting a fire origin and cause investigation, incidentally observed structural instability outside the contracted scope and discharged the disclosure obligation by notifying the client, calling the county building official, and recommending bracing to the building owners
The incidental observation of structural instability during a fire investigation triggered disclosure obligations to the client, regulatory authority, and building owners, even though the structural assessment was outside the contracted scope
During the investigation, Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
Incidental observation disclosure obligation overrides scope limitations; Engineer A correctly disclosed the structural hazard despite it being outside the fire investigation scope
Jones's barn extension construction before issuance of certificate of occupancy for barn extension
Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation - Bridge Case BER 00-5
From observation of unsafe traffic crossing reopened bridge through resolution
State and federal transportation officials
Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation State
Engineer A's professional obligation following non-engineer override and ongoing unsafe traffic
Observation of significant bridge movement and overweight vehicles (log trucks, tankers) crossing despite five-ton limit, with no follow-up inspection
Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Structural Expertise
Engineer A, retained for fire investigation but also a licensed structural engineer, was obligated to apply structural engineering competence to evaluate and report on the observed structural instability, even though the engagement was contracted for fire origin and cause investigation
Engineer A's dual credentials in fire investigation and structural engineering created an obligation to act on the structural instability observation; a single-discipline fire investigator without structural credentials would not have had the same obligation
Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation
Multi-credential competence activation obligation requires Engineer A to apply structural engineering expertise to the observed hazard; the scope limitation does not override the obligation created by the engineer's secondary credential
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A during building investigation and safety escalation decision
Governs Engineer A's obligations to hold public safety paramount, notify relevant authorities of structural danger, and advise the client of risks — including the duty to escalate when the county building official fails to respond
the overriding value in the NSPE Code of Ethics
there are basic values and principles in the NSPE Code of Ethics that provide important guidance to professional engineers who are faced with such situations
Engineer A and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the ethical obligations of engineers facing public safety threats
Identified as the overriding normative framework establishing the engineer's fundamental obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare; cited as providing 'basic values and principles' guiding engineers in public safety dilemmas
Non-Engineer Public Works Director Bridge Reopening Decision - BER Case 00-5
From public works director's decision to commission retired bridge inspector through Engineer A's observation of ongoing unsafe traffic
Non-Engineer Authority Directing Engineering Safety Decision State
Public works director's authority over bridge safety determination and reopening
Nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and authorized installation of two crutch piles and reopening with five-ton limit
From Engineer A's preliminary investigation conclusion through implementation of bracing or other remediation
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
Building assessed by Engineer A as at risk of collapse, though not imminently
Structural bracing installed or other remediation completed
Engineer A concludes that roof sag and outward-leaning walls due to insufficient lateral restraint create a danger of collapse
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk - BER Case 07-10
From Engineer A's discovery of modifications through resolution of safety concern
Engineer A was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
Barn structure with removed load-bearing columns and footings, at risk under severe snow loads
The danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
Removal of columns and footings supporting barn roof during extension construction
Persistent Escalation Obligation Applied in BER Case 07-10
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to review the matter but took no action; Engineer A was required to follow up in writing, set a deadline for action, and escalate to county or state building officials if the deadline passed without adequate response
A verbal acknowledgment without action does not discharge the engineer's obligation; the engineer must follow up in writing with a specific deadline and escalate if the deadline passes
Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
The obligation to protect public safety requires continued monitoring and escalation until adequate corrective action is taken
Persistent Escalation Obligation Triggered By County Building Official Non-Response
County building official non-response to structural hazard notification
Employer concurrence requirement for post-obligation advocacy
The county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call regarding the structural hazard triggers an obligation for Engineer A to escalate beyond the initial phone call — including written follow-up, escalation to supervisory officials, or notification of alternative regulatory authorities — rather than treating the unanswered call as a discharged obligation
In this context, the county building official's non-response means Engineer A's public welfare obligation is not yet discharged; further escalation is required to ensure the structural hazard is addressed by appropriate authorities
Persistent escalation obligation requires Engineer A to take further action beyond the unanswered phone call; the non-response does not discharge the safety reporting obligation
Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern
From Engineer A's structural assessment through resolution by building official or remediation
Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern State
Engineer A identifies structural safety concern in building that already holds a certificate of occupancy
Building official investigates and takes action, or structural remediation is completed
Engineer A concludes structural deficiency exists in building for which certificate of occupancy was already issued
Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern - Current Case
From Engineer A's identification of structural concern through escalation to appropriate authorities
Engineer A's structural safety concern regarding building for which certificate of occupancy has been issued
Engineer A identified structural safety concern in building that had already received certificate of occupancy
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Implicated By County Non-Response
County building official's failure to respond to structural hazard notification
The county building official's failure to return Engineer A's phone call is analogous to a regulatory authority's failure to act on a safety notification, triggering an obligation for Engineer A to assess whether further escalation — to supervisory officials, state authorities, or other regulatory bodies — is required to protect the public
The county building official's non-response requires Engineer A to assess whether the initial notification was sufficient or whether further escalation is required; the non-response does not discharge the engineer's public welfare obligation
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
Post-client-refusal escalation assessment obligation requires Engineer A to critically assess whether further action is needed after the county official's non-response
Post-Sale Structural Safety Concern - BER Case 07-10
From Engineer A learning of Jones's structural modifications through verbal notification to town supervisor
Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones.
Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation State
Engineer A's barn designed and built on property subsequently sold to Jones, who made structural modifications
Not fully resolved — town supervisor agreed to review but took no action
Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof.
Engineer A learned that Jones had removed columns and footings supporting the roof as part of barn extension, raising concern about collapse under severe snow loads
Proportional Escalation Obligation Applied to Current Case
Structurally unstable building with recent structural modifications
Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, the non-imminent but significant structural risk required escalation beyond the unanswered county building official contact to the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction
Non-imminent but significant structural risk triggers a measured but persistent escalation obligation — not a full-bore multi-authority campaign, but more than a single unanswered phone call
Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
The measured escalation level is appropriate to the non-imminent nature of the risk while still discharging the public welfare obligation
Although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Proportional Escalation Obligation Invoked in Comparison of BER Cases 00-5 and 07-10
Barn structural modification risk (BER 07-10)
Building structural instability (current case)
The BER distinguished between the full-bore multi-authority escalation required in BER Case 00-5 (imminent, widespread bridge collapse risk) and the more measured written notification to owner and town supervisor required in BER Case 07-10 (non-imminent, limited barn collapse risk), establishing that the appropriate escalation level is calibrated to risk imminence and breadth
The appropriate escalation level is determined by assessing (1) imminence of harm, (2) breadth of population at risk, (3) whether the engineer has specific public responsibility for the asset, and (4) whether initial notifications have been acknowledged
the facts and circumstances of BER Case 07-10 were different in several respects from those in BER Case 00-5
The principle resolves the tension between over-response and under-response by calibrating the obligation to the nature of the risk
the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation. The BER concluded that in BER Case 07-10, the limited nature of the danger did not appear to require this (higher) level of response.
the facts and circumstances of BER Case 07-10 were different in several respects from those in BER Case 00-5. First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation Applied in BER Case 00-5
Engineer A as local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take a full-bore campaign to county governing authority, prosecutors, state/federal transportation officials, and the state engineering licensure board — a higher standard than would apply to a private consulting engineer
Public employment with specific infrastructure responsibility creates a dual accountability — to the engineering profession and to the public trust — that elevates the required escalation standard beyond that of a private practitioner
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue
The heightened public employee obligation overrides deference to employer direction when public safety is at risk
Public Pressure Override of Bridge Closure - BER Case 00-5
From rally and petition presentation through County Commission decision not to reopen
Public Pressure Overriding Engineering Safety Closure State
County Commission decision-making context following community petition to reopen bridge
County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge (pressure resisted in this instance)
Rally held and petition with approximately 200 signatures presented to County Commission requesting bridge reopening to limited traffic
Public Safety at Risk — Structural Instability
From Engineer A's identification of structural deficiency through remediation or demolition
Structural instability of building poses danger to occupants and public
Structural bracing installed, building condemned, or other protective action taken
Engineer A concludes building is structurally unstable with risk of collapse
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Fire Investigation
Structurally unstable building with non-imminent collapse risk
Engineer A, retained for a fire investigation, recognized a structural collapse hazard and immediately took steps to protect the public by notifying the client, the county building official, and the building owners — prioritizing public safety over the narrow scope of the contracted engagement
In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to act on observed structural instability even though it was outside the contracted fire investigation scope, because the engineer's professional competence enabled recognition of a hazard that could harm building occupants and the public
Public welfare obligation overrides scope limitations and confidentiality concerns; Engineer A correctly notified client, regulatory authority, and building owners
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A in BER Case 00-5
280-foot bridge with rotten pilings 30 feet above a stream
Engineer A, as local government bridge engineer, ordered bridge closure upon learning of rotten pilings, maintained the closure against public pressure and petition, and bore an obligation to escalate to multiple authorities when a non-engineer public works director overrode the engineering safety determination
Public welfare obligation required Engineer A to resist public pressure, political pressure, and non-engineer supervisor override, and to escalate to county governing authority, prosecutors, state/federal transportation officials, and licensing board
Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
Public welfare obligation overrides all competing considerations when an imminent and widespread safety risk is identified
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities. By failing to take this action, Engineer A had ignored his basic professional and ethical obligations.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A in Current Case
Engineer A, retained for fire origin/cause investigation, independently observed structural instability and reported it to Client B and the county building official, recognizing an obligation to protect building occupants and the public from potential structural collapse
Public welfare obligation required Engineer A to report structural hazard even though it was outside the contracted scope of the fire investigation engagement
Public welfare obligation overrides contractual scope limitations and confidentiality when a material safety risk is identified
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
Does Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond the unresponsive county building official change if Client B objects to further disclosure, and at what point does Engineer A's duty to the public override the faithful agent duty to the client?
Because Engineer A's structural assessment was described as 'preliminary,' does the epistemic uncertainty of that assessment affect the threshold at which escalation becomes obligatory, and should Engineer A have sought a more definitive structural evaluation before contacting regulatory authorities?
Does the fact that a county building official already issued a certificate of occupancy following the structural modifications create a heightened or diminished obligation for Engineer A to escalate, given that the official's prior action implicitly endorsed the building's safety?
What are Engineer A's ongoing obligations if the building owners decline to implement the recommended bracing, and does that refusal independently trigger a duty to escalate to additional authorities even absent the county official's non-response?
Does the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation to Client B conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when Client B, having been notified, might prefer that Engineer A not escalate further to supervisory or alternative regulatory authorities who could impose costly remediation or liability?
Does the Risk Threshold Calibration principle — which counsels proportionate rather than maximum escalation for non-imminent risks — conflict with the Persistent Escalation Obligation triggered by the county building official's non-response, and how should Engineer A resolve the tension between measured response and the duty to keep pressing until the hazard is addressed?
Does the Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Defense principle conflict with the Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation in determining how far Engineer A's structural analysis should extend: if Engineer A's forensic engagement was limited to fire origin and cause, does invoking structural expertise simultaneously expand both the duty to disclose and the duty to perform a thorough structural evaluation beyond what a preliminary assessment provides?
Does the Written Documentation Requirement — which demands that safety notifications be memorialized in writing — conflict with the Proportional Escalation Obligation for non-imminent risks, in the sense that imposing a formal written escalation chain on a non-imminent hazard may be disproportionate, yet failing to document leaves the public unprotected if the verbal-only notification is ignored as it was in BER Case 07-10?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to protect public safety by stopping at a verbal phone call to the county building official, or does the duty to hold public welfare paramount impose an unconditional obligation to escalate in writing regardless of the non-imminent nature of the collapse risk?
From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's decision to limit escalation to a single unanswered phone call produce the best achievable outcome for public safety, given that the building retained a certificate of occupancy and the collapse risk remained unmitigated, and would a written multi-agency escalation campaign have produced a meaningfully safer outcome at proportionate cost?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a competent structural engineer by recommending bracing to the owners and making a single phone call, or does genuine professional virtue require persistent, documented advocacy until a responsible authority acknowledges and acts on the structural deficiency?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's dual role as forensic fire investigator and licensed structural engineer create a non-waivable duty to act on incidentally discovered structural hazards, such that the scope-of-work limitation of the fire investigation contract cannot serve as a moral or professional defense for inaction, and how does this duty interact with the faithful agent obligation owed to Client B?
If Engineer A had immediately followed the unanswered phone call with a written notification to the county building official's supervisor and the fire marshal, would the certificate of occupancy have been suspended and the collapse risk mitigated before the building was reoccupied, and does the absence of that written escalation constitute a breach of Engineer A's ethical obligations regardless of the non-imminent nature of the risk?
What if the county building official had returned Engineer A's phone call but refused to revoke the certificate of occupancy, citing the prior inspection as sufficient — would Engineer A's ethical obligations have required escalation to the fire marshal, state building authority, or other agencies, and how does the BER 07-10 precedent of deadline-conditioned escalation inform what Engineer A should have done next?
What if Client B had explicitly instructed Engineer A not to contact any government authorities about the structural deficiency, invoking confidentiality — would that instruction have relieved Engineer A of the obligation to notify the county building official and escalate further, or does the public welfare paramount principle override any client-imposed confidentiality constraint in a case involving structural collapse risk?
If the structural instability Engineer A discovered had posed an imminent rather than non-imminent collapse risk, how would Engineer A's escalation obligations have differed — would the BER 00-5 precedent of full-bore, multi-agency escalation and physical closure measures have applied, and does the non-imminent characterization in the current case represent a meaningful ethical distinction or merely a difference in urgency rather than in the underlying duty?
Resistance to Public Pressure Applied in BER Case 00-5
Engineer A maintained the bridge closure against a petition with 200 signatures and a public rally; the County Commission supported the closure, but Engineer A faced an obligation to resist when the non-engineer public works director subsequently overrode the engineering safety determination by having a retired non-engineer bridge inspector examine the bridge
Engineering safety determinations are not subject to democratic override through petitions or political pressure; the engineer must maintain the determination and escalate when it is overridden by non-technical authorities
Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
Professional safety judgment overrides public and political pressure; the engineer must escalate when safety determinations are overridden without adequate technical justification
Risk Threshold Calibration Applied to Current Case
Engineer A assessed the building structural instability as not presenting an imminent collapse risk, placing it in the category of significant but non-imminent risk that triggers a measured but persistent escalation obligation rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign
The non-imminent nature of the risk calibrates the required escalation to a measured but persistent response — escalating to supervisor of county official, fire marshal, or other agencies with jurisdiction, rather than contacting prosecutors and state/federal officials
Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
Risk Threshold Calibration Invoked By Engineer A Non-Imminent Collapse Assessment
Non-imminent structural collapse risk assessment
Engineer A assessed the structural collapse risk as non-imminent but real, and calibrated the response accordingly — notifying the client, calling the county building official, and recommending bracing to building owners — rather than treating the non-imminent characterization as eliminating the reporting obligation
The non-imminent characterization of the collapse risk did not eliminate Engineer A's reporting obligations; it calibrated the response to a measured but proactive notification to client, regulatory authority, and building owners rather than emergency-level escalation
Non-imminent risk still triggers notification obligations; Engineer A correctly notified relevant parties even though the risk was not characterized as imminent
Safety Closure Barrier Removal - BER Case 00-5
From Monday discovery of removed barricades through installation of more permanent barricades
On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river, and the 'Bridge Closed' sign was found beyond the trees by the roadway.
Safety Closure Enforcement Failure State
Physical barricades and signs erected by Engineer A to close hazardous bridge
Installation of more permanent barricades and signs
More permanent barricades and signs were installed.
Barricades found dumped in river and 'Bridge Closed' sign found beyond trees on Monday following Friday closure
Scope-of-Work Limitation Non-Defense Invoked By Engineer A Structural Disclosure
Structural instability findings made during fire investigation
Engineer A's contractual scope — fire origin and cause investigation — did not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose the structural instability findings already made during the engagement; the scope limitation defined the investigation obligation but not the disclosure obligation for findings already made
The fire investigation scope limitation did not authorize Engineer A to suppress the structural instability findings; once the findings were made within the course of the engagement, the disclosure obligation arose independently of the scope limitation
Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
Scope limitation is an incomplete ethical defense; Engineer A correctly disclosed the structural findings despite the fire investigation scope
Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Defense Applied in Current Case
Engineer A was retained for fire origin/cause investigation but observed structural instability; the contractual scope limitation did not excuse non-disclosure of the structural hazard, and Engineer A was obligated to report it and continue escalating when the initial report was unacknowledged
The fire investigation scope limitation defined the boundaries of required investigation but did not authorize suppression of structural safety findings already made within that investigation
Material safety findings must be disclosed regardless of contracted scope
Scope Expansion to Structural Assessment
Scope Expansion to Structural Assessment → Structural Instability Discovered
Professional engineering standards bodies
concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint
Engineer A during preliminary structural investigation
Provides the technical basis for Engineer A's preliminary assessment that recent structural changes caused roof sag and outward wall lean due to insufficient lateral restraint, grounding the professional judgment that collapse is a danger
Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation Applied in BER Case 07-10
Engineer A should have first notified the current owner (Jones) of structural concerns regarding the barn before or alongside notifying the town supervisor, because Jones was the party directly exposed to the structural risk and had the most immediate ability to take protective action
The current owner is the party most directly exposed to the safety risk and should receive direct notification, not merely indirect notification through regulatory channels
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
Direct notification to the affected party is required in addition to regulatory notification, not as a substitute for it
Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer A To Building Owners
Building owners as identifiable third parties directly exposed to structural collapse risk
Engineer A directly notified the building owners of the structural collapse risk and recommended bracing, fulfilling the obligation to notify identifiable third parties directly exposed to the hazard, particularly given the county building official's failure to respond
The building owners, as identifiable third parties directly exposed to the structural collapse hazard, required direct notification from Engineer A, especially given the county building official's failure to respond to the regulatory notification
Third-party notification obligation overrides confidentiality concerns when the third party is directly exposed to a safety hazard; Engineer A correctly notified the building owners
Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice - BER Case 00-5
From public works director's commissioning of retired inspector through evaluation and crutch pile recommendation
Unlicensed Inspector Performing Engineering Evaluation State
Retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) performing structural evaluation of hazardous bridge
Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
Nonengineer public works director directed retired bridge inspector (not an engineer) to examine the bridge
Unlicensed Practice Challenge Obligation Applied in BER Case 00-5
Engineer A should have determined whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending installation of crutch piles — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and if so, reported those activities to the state licensing board
A non-engineer making structural determinations about a bridge — including recommending specific structural interventions — may constitute the unlicensed practice of engineering, which must be reported to the state licensing board
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
The obligation to challenge unlicensed practice is independent of and not overridden by employer direction or political pressure
State engineering licensure boards / NSPE
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard (Professional Norm and State Board Rule)
Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5, referenced in the current case discussion
Invoked in BER Case 00-5 as the standard requiring Engineer A to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities constituted unlicensed practice of engineering and whether reporting to the state board was warranted
Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record - BER Case 07-10
From Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor through Board's determination that written follow-up was required
Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record State
Engineer A's verbal-only communication with town supervisor regarding barn structural concern
Board determination that written notification to owner and written confirmation to town supervisor were required
Engineer A verbally contacted town supervisor about structural concern without producing written documentation
Verbal Notification to Client B → Collapse Risk Remains Unmitigated
Written Documentation Requirement Applied in BER Case 07-10
Engineer A was required to make a written record of communications with the owner and town supervisor, follow up the verbal communication with written confirmation, and use written communications when setting deadlines for corrective action
Written documentation creates an unambiguous record that cannot be misunderstood, ignored, or denied, and preserves the engineer's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation
Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
Written follow-up to verbal communications is required to create an adequate record of safety notification
Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken to adequately address the situation within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
Written Documentation Requirement Implicated By Engineer A Phone Call
Verbal recommendation to building owners
Engineer A's phone call to the county building official and verbal recommendation to building owners should be supplemented with written documentation — including a written follow-up to the county official after non-response and a written recommendation to building owners — to create an unambiguous and actionable record of the safety notification
The written documentation requirement is implicated by Engineer A's reliance on verbal/phone communications for safety notifications; written follow-up is required to ensure the record is clear and actionable, particularly given the county official's non-response
Written documentation requirement applies regardless of scope limitations; Engineer A should document all safety notifications in writing
authorization for bridge replacement before state and federal department reviews
barn construction by Engineer A before sale of property to Jones
barricades found dumped (Monday) before installation of more permanent barricades
bridge inspector telephone call before erection of barricades and signs
erection of barricades and signs (Friday) before barricades found dumped in river (Monday)
fire at building before Engineer A's investigation
installation of more permanent barricades before publication of press photos
issuance of certificate of occupancy before Engineer A's fire investigation
issuance of certificate of occupancy for barn extension before Engineer A learning of the extension
non-engineer public works director decision on crutch piles before Engineer A's observation of traffic and bridge movement
phone call to county building official before non-return of county building official's call
preliminary site investigation studies overlaps environmental, geological, right-of-way studies
press publication of photos before receipt of detailed inspection report
rally and petition presentation before County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
receipt of detailed inspection report before authorization for bridge replacement
recent structural changes to building before issuance of certificate of occupancy
removal of columns and footings (Jones's modification) during barn extension construction
sale of property to Jones before Jones's proposed barn extension
state and federal department reviews before rally and petition presentation
town approval of changes before barn extension construction completion
verbal notification to Client B meets phone call to county building official