ProEthica Case 133 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.553776
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER_Case_00-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 00-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to benchmark Engineer A's obligations in the present case
usedincontext: Primary analogical precedent for the present case; establishes the standard for engineer escalation obligations when a bridge is closed due to structural danger and a non-engineer public works director overrides the engineer's safety determination
version: 2000
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.556845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER_Case_89-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 89-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.'
textreferences: 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.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5 and referenced in the present case
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited alongside Cases 90-5 and 92-6 to establish the foundational principle that public health and safety issues are at the core of engineering ethics and that engineers must not bow to public or employment pressure
version: 1989
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.556990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER_Case_90-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 90-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.'
textreferences: 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.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5 and referenced in the present case
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited alongside Cases 89-7 and 92-6 to establish the foundational principle that public health and safety issues are at the core of engineering ethics and that engineers must not bow to public or employment pressure
version: 1990
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.561151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER_Case_92-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 92-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.'
textreferences: 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.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5 and referenced in the present case
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited alongside Cases 89-7 and 90-5 to establish the foundational principle that public health and safety issues are at the core of engineering ethics and that engineers must not bow to public or employment pressure
version: 1992
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.561285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER Case No. 00-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER Case No. 89-7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER Case No. 90-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983753
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER Case No. 92-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Barn Construction Completed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Professional_Competence_Standard
activates constraint: Structural_Integrity_Baseline_Established
causes state change: Barn exists as a completed structure with defined load-bearing elements; Engineer A holds professional responsibility for original design
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Ensure_Structural_Soundness_At_Time_Of_Sale
creates obligation: Maintain_Design_Records
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Year 0 (initial construction period)
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer A completes construction of a barn with horse stalls on his property, establishing the original structural design baseline. The barn is built to Engineer A's professional specifications at the time of construction.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Barn Extension Executed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_A_Ethical_Duty_To_Act
activates constraint: Public_Safety_Risk_Constraint
activates constraint: Structural_Integrity_Compromised_Constraint
causes state change: Original structural design is permanently altered; load-bearing capacity is potentially compromised; latent risk of collapse under severe snow loads is introduced; the structure no longer reflects Engineer A's original design intent
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Assess_Risk
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Notify_Relevant_Parties
creates obligation: Town_Must_Investigate_Structural_Safety
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Unspecified time after property sale
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: high
comment: Jones physically completes the barn extension, which involved removing portions of the original load-bearing columns and footings designed by Engineer A. This modification fundamentally alters the structural integrity of the original design.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Barn Extension Executed → Structural Collapse Risk Persists
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Jones physically completes the barn extension, which involved removing portions of the original load-bearing columns and footings, directly compromising the structural integrity of the barn
cause: Barn Extension Executed
counterfactual: Had Jones retained the load-bearing columns and footings, or had a structural engineer redesigned the support system prior to modification, the collapse risk would not have materialized
effect: Structural Collapse Risk Persists
necessary factors: Absence of structural engineering review prior to modification
necessary factors: Jones's decision to remove load-bearing columns and footings
necessary factors: Town's approval without adequate structural analysis
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Jones (primary); Town (secondary); Engineer A (tertiary)
sufficient factors: Removal of load-bearing elements + no remedial reinforcement + no corrective intervention = persistent structural collapse risk
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Bridge_Inspection_Reporting_Standard_Instance
type: BridgeInspectionReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Consulting engineering firm (unnamed)
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Bridge Inspection Reporting Standard (Consulting Engineering Firm Report)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Bridge Inspection Reporting Standard
sourcetext: Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
textreferences: Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
usedby: Engineer A and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the technical foundation for the safety concern
usedincontext: The signed and sealed detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, identifying seven pilings requiring replacement, serves as the technical basis for Engineer A's safety determination and subsequent escalation obligations
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.561778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Building-Structural-Safety-Investigation-Standard
type: BuildingStructuralSafetyInvestigationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional structural engineering bodies
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Standards for Structural Safety Investigation and Collapse Risk Assessment
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating the structural danger posed by the modified barn
usedincontext: Provides professional norms for how Engineer A should assess and document the structural collapse risk arising from the removal of columns and footings, and what obligations arise upon identifying a dangerous condition
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.558510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Building_Structural_Safety_Investigation_Standard_Instance
type: BuildingStructuralSafetyInvestigationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering norms / state building officials
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard (Barn Structural Integrity)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard
sourcetext: In the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
textreferences: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
textreferences: In the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's obligations regarding the barn
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligations when observing structural integrity concerns in the barn in the present case, including the duty to notify the owner and town supervisor in writing and monitor the situation
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.561916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Case 133 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 7
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

CausalLink_Designs and Builds Barn
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

CausalLink_Follow Up Verbally with Writte
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

CausalLink_Issue Written Ultimatum with E
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

CausalLink_Notify Current Owner in Writin
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

CausalLink_Sells Property to Jones
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

CausalLink_Verbally Contacts Town Supervi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Certificate-of-Occupancy-Regulatory-Framework
type: CertificateofOccupancyRegulatoryFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Local/state government building regulatory authority
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued
usedby: Town building officials; Engineer A in evaluating whether proper regulatory review occurred
usedincontext: The town issued a certificate of occupancy for the barn extension after approving the structural modifications; this framework is implicated when Engineer A raises concerns about whether the approval process adequately assessed structural safety
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.557723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion — Engineer A Safety Escalation Despite Town Approval
type: CertificateofOccupancyGovernmentalApprovalNon-PreclusionofEngineerSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The town reviewed and approved Jones's removal of load-bearing columns and footings and issued a certificate of occupancy for the extension. Despite this official approval, Engineer A formed a professional judgment that the structure was at risk of collapse under severe snow loads, and his safety escalation duty was not extinguished by the CO.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Certificate of Occupancy Governmental Approval Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: The town's approval of Jones's structural modifications and issuance of a certificate of occupancy did not relieve Engineer A of the professional duty to escalate his structural safety concern — Engineer A remained constrained to notify Jones and relevant authorities of the perceived deficiency despite the official governmental sanction of the modifications.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A learned of the approved modifications and formed a structural safety concern
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.566621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A has fulfilled his ethical obligation by taking prudent action in notifying the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A fulfilled his ethical obligation by notifying the town supervisor is incomplete because it fails to account for the notification sequencing problem: Jones, as the current property owner, holds both the legal authority and the practical capacity to commission a structural reassessment and remediate the deficiency. By bypassing Jones entirely and contacting only the town supervisor, Engineer A routed his safety concern through a non-engineer municipal official who lacked the technical competence to evaluate the structural risk and who, in fact, took no action. A more complete fulfillment of Engineer A's ethical obligation would have required simultaneous or prior written notification to Jones, identifying the specific structural concern — removal of load-bearing columns and footings — and recommending that Jones retain a licensed structural engineer to assess the modification's adequacy under severe snow load conditions. The town supervisor notification, while appropriate as a regulatory channel, cannot substitute for direct notification to the party with the most immediate ability to act.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that verbal notification to the town supervisor constitutes fulfillment of Engineer A's ethical obligation understates the documentation requirement embedded in responsible professional practice. A verbal-only contact creates no formal record of the safety concern, imposes no accountability on the town supervisor to respond, and leaves Engineer A with no evidentiary basis to demonstrate that he discharged his duty if a collapse subsequently occurs. The non-imminent character of the snow-load risk — while relevant to calibrating the urgency of escalation — does not eliminate the written documentation requirement; it merely permits a graduated rather than immediate escalation timeline. Engineer A should have followed his verbal contact with a written communication to the town supervisor confirming the substance of the conversation, the specific structural concern, and a reasonable deadline for the town to respond or act. The absence of this written follow-up means that Engineer A's notification, while better than silence, falls short of the standard a reasonably prudent engineer would apply when public safety is at stake and the notified authority has taken no action.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: BER_Case_00-5
cited provision3: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion does not adequately address what Engineer A's ethical obligations become after the town supervisor's inaction. The supervisor's failure to act is not a terminal event that discharges Engineer A's duty; it is a trigger for the next step in a graduated escalation sequence. The non-imminent nature of the snow-load risk distinguishes this case from the full-bore multi-authority escalation warranted in BER 00-5, where an imminent bridge collapse risk justified bypassing non-engineer decision-makers immediately. But proportionality does not mean passivity: a non-imminent risk that persists because a non-engineer municipal authority has failed to act independently generates an obligation to escalate to county or state building officials. Engineer A's ethical obligation was not exhausted by a single verbal contact; it required monitoring the town's response, issuing a written follow-up with a defined response deadline, and — upon continued inaction — escalating to the next competent regulatory authority. The Board's framing that notifying the town supervisor was sufficient conflates the initiation of the escalation process with its completion, and in doing so, leaves the public safety risk unresolved.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.1
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion implicitly treats Engineer A's post-sale status as a private individual without a current client relationship as a factor that limits rather than merely contextualizes his ethical obligations. This framing requires analytical correction. Engineer A's ethical duty to protect public safety under Code Section II.1 does not derive from a contractual or client relationship — it derives from his status as a licensed professional engineer and, more specifically, from his unique position as the original designer of the barn. That original designer status gives Engineer A a form of epistemic authority over the structure's load-bearing design that no other party — not Jones, not the town supervisor, not the building inspector who approved the certificate of occupancy — possesses. The removal of columns and footings that Engineer A originally specified as load-bearing elements is precisely the kind of structural modification that only the original designer is fully equipped to evaluate for systemic collapse risk under severe snow loads. Far from diminishing his ethical obligation, Engineer A's post-sale status as a private individual actually preserves and in some respects heightens his duty to act, because he is the only person in the situation with both the technical knowledge to identify the risk and the professional obligation to report it. The Board's conclusion should be understood as recognizing this continuing obligation, even if it did not articulate the original-designer epistemic authority rationale explicitly.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:53:43.556683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.1
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: A significant nuance the Board did not address is the effect of the town's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structurally modified barn extension on Engineer A's escalation obligations. Rather than relieving Engineer A of further duty, the certificate of occupancy creates a compounding ethical problem: it confers an aura of official structural approval on a modification that Engineer A — as the original designer — has reason to believe is structurally unsafe. This false sense of official approval is potentially more dangerous than the absence of any approval, because it may cause Jones, barn occupants, and future parties to discount or dismiss Engineer A's safety concern as the opinion of a private individual contradicted by official municipal action. Engineer A's ethical obligation therefore extended not merely to notifying the town supervisor generically but to specifically notifying the town's building authority — the entity that issued the certificate of occupancy — of the structural basis for his concern, so that the certificate of occupancy could be reconsidered or conditioned on structural remediation. The Board's conclusion that notifying the town supervisor was sufficient does not account for the institutional distinction between the town supervisor as a general executive official and the building authority as the specific regulatory body with jurisdiction over structural safety certifications. Engineer A's notification should have been directed at, or escalated to, the authority with power to revoke or condition the certificate of occupancy.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:53:43.556778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A should have notified Jones, the current property owner, before or simultaneously with contacting the town supervisor. Jones holds the most immediate legal authority over the barn and the most direct practical ability to commission a structural reassessment or halt use of the structure. By bypassing Jones entirely and going straight to the town supervisor — a non-engineer municipal official with no structural expertise — Engineer A reduced the likelihood of prompt, technically informed remediation. The town supervisor's subsequent inaction confirms this risk. Notifying Jones first would have placed the safety concern directly in the hands of the party best positioned to act voluntarily, potentially avoiding the need for regulatory intervention altogether. The ethical obligation to hold public welfare paramount does not excuse Engineer A from also engaging the party with the most immediate remedial authority. Notifying only the town supervisor, without any contact with Jones, represents an incomplete discharge of Engineer A's safety notification duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Certificate-of-Occupancy-Regulatory-Framework
cited provision3: Building_Structural_Safety_Investigation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the modified barn heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's ethical obligation to act. The town's approval process — conducted without the benefit of the original designer's structural knowledge — failed to detect the load-bearing compromise created by the removal of columns and footings. The certificate of occupancy creates a false official imprimatur of safety that barn occupants and the public are likely to rely upon. This reliance gap makes Engineer A's intervention more urgent, not less, because Engineer A possesses design knowledge that the approving authority demonstrably lacked. The certificate of occupancy does not preclude Engineer A from escalating safety concerns; it affirmatively reinforces the need to do so, since the regulatory process that should have caught the deficiency did not. Engineer A's ethical obligation to hold public welfare paramount is therefore amplified by the town's own approval failure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Severe-Snow-Load-Structural-Design-Standard
cited provision3: Structural-Load-Calculation-Standard
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: A good-faith concern grounded in Engineer A's original design knowledge suffices to trigger the ethical obligation to act, even without a formal re-inspection of the modified structure. Engineer A designed the barn and therefore possesses authoritative knowledge of the load-bearing function of the columns and footings that Jones removed. That original design knowledge provides a sufficient technical basis to form a credible, professionally grounded concern about collapse risk under severe snow loads. The NSPE Code of Ethics does not require certainty before an engineer acts to protect public safety — it requires that the engineer hold public welfare paramount, which implies acting on credible professional concern rather than waiting for confirmed catastrophe. The threshold is professional good faith, not proof of imminent collapse. Engineer A's concern, rooted in direct knowledge of the original structural design, clearly meets that threshold.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer A bears a continuing ethical obligation as the original designer that persists after the property sale, but the character of that obligation shifts materially when the safety risk originates from a third party's modifications rather than from Engineer A's original design. Engineer A's original design was structurally sound; the risk arises entirely from Jones's removal of load-bearing elements. This means Engineer A's post-sale obligation is not one of correcting a defect in his own work but rather one of public safety notification grounded in his unique design knowledge. The obligation is real and enforceable under the NSPE Code's public welfare paramount principle, but it is properly characterized as a notification and escalation duty — not a remediation or liability duty. Engineer A is not ethically responsible for the modification Jones made, but he is ethically responsible for ensuring that the resulting safety risk is communicated to those with the authority and ability to address it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985287
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between Public Welfare Paramount and Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing does not resolve cleanly in favor of bypassing Jones. While it is true that going to the town supervisor first might seem to prioritize regulatory authority, the town supervisor is a non-engineer official who, as the facts confirm, took no action. Jones, as the current owner, has both the legal authority to restrict access to the barn and the practical ability to engage a structural engineer for reassessment. Notifying Jones first — or simultaneously with the town supervisor — does not delay public protection; it adds a parallel, potentially faster remediation pathway. The Public Welfare Paramount principle is best served by maximizing the number of parties with both authority and capability who are simultaneously informed of the risk. Sequential notification that begins with a non-engineer municipal official and omits the property owner entirely is the approach most likely to result in the inaction that in fact occurred.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
cited provision3: Building_Structural_Safety_Investigation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The Written Documentation Requirement for safety notification applies regardless of whether the structural risk is imminent or non-imminent. The non-imminent character of the snow load risk may calibrate the urgency and pace of escalation, but it does not eliminate the requirement to create a formal written record of the safety concern. A verbal-only notification to the town supervisor leaves no documentary trail, creates no accountability mechanism, and provides no basis for subsequent escalation if the supervisor fails to act — as occurred here. Written documentation serves multiple functions beyond urgency signaling: it creates a record that can be transmitted to other authorities, it demonstrates Engineer A's professional diligence, and it places the recipient on formal notice in a way that a verbal conversation does not. The Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence principle governs how quickly and how broadly Engineer A must escalate, not whether he must document. Engineer A's verbal-only approach fails the written documentation standard regardless of the non-imminent nature of the risk.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
cited provision3: BER_Case_00-5
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The Persistent Escalation Obligation is not fully neutralized by the non-imminent character of the barn's snow load risk. While proportionality permits Engineer A to proceed more gradually than in an imminent-collapse scenario, the town supervisor's inaction is itself a triggering event that independently activates a duty to escalate further. The non-imminent nature of the risk justifies a graduated, deadline-conditioned escalation approach — for example, giving the town supervisor a defined period to respond before escalating to county or state building officials — rather than accepting indefinite inaction. A non-engineer municipal official's failure to act does not extinguish the underlying safety risk; it merely shifts the escalation burden upward. Engineer A's acceptance of the town supervisor's non-response without any follow-up action falls short of the persistent escalation obligation that the NSPE Code's public welfare paramount principle demands, even when the risk is non-imminent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: BER_Case_00-5
cited provision3: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope principle — which recognizes that Engineer A in the present case is a private citizen without the institutional custodial responsibility of the public-employee engineer in BER 00-5 — does not override the Public Welfare Paramount principle when a non-engineer authority fails to act. The distinction between public-employee and private-citizen engineers is relevant to the baseline level of escalation expected, but it does not create a categorical exemption from further escalation once the designated authority has demonstrably failed to respond. The Public Welfare Paramount principle applies equally to all licensed engineers regardless of employment status. When a non-engineer municipal official's inaction leaves a credible structural collapse risk unaddressed, the private-citizen engineer's role-differentiated latitude narrows: the public safety imperative reasserts itself and demands escalation to authorities with both the competence and the power to act. The role distinction calibrates the starting point of escalation, not its ceiling.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did not fully discharge his categorical duty to protect public safety by relying solely on a verbal notification to the town supervisor. The NSPE Code of Ethics imposes an affirmative, unconditional obligation to hold public welfare paramount — a duty that is categorical in character and does not diminish based on the absence of a client relationship or the non-imminent nature of the risk. A categorical duty of this kind demands more than a single verbal contact that produces no result. Deontological reasoning requires that the duty be performed in a manner adequate to its object: protecting persons from structural collapse. A verbal notification that is acknowledged but not acted upon, with no written follow-up and no escalation, does not satisfy the categorical imperative to protect public safety. The duty was triggered; it was not discharged.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.985673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's verbal-only notification to the town supervisor — without also notifying Jones in writing and without escalating after the supervisor's inaction — did not produce the best achievable outcome for barn occupants and the public. The actual outcome was continued exposure to an unaddressed structural collapse risk. A consequentialist analysis would evaluate the expected safety outcomes of alternative notification strategies: notifying Jones in writing would have placed the safety concern with the party most able to act; following up the verbal notification with a written report would have created accountability pressure on the town supervisor; escalating to county or state building officials after the supervisor's inaction would have introduced a higher-authority remediation pathway. Each of these additional steps would have increased the probability of the structural risk being addressed. Engineer A's restrained single-contact approach, measured by its actual consequences, left the public worse off than a more comprehensive notification and escalation strategy would have.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.980630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's restraint — stopping at a single verbal contact with the town supervisor — falls short of the diligence and persistence a virtuous engineer would exercise when a structure they designed faces a credible collapse risk. A virtuous engineer, characterized by professional integrity, moral courage, and genuine concern for public welfare, would not treat a single unproductive verbal contact as the end of their obligation. The virtuous engineer would follow up in writing, would notify the current owner directly, and would persist through escalating channels until the safety concern was either addressed or formally rejected by a competent authority. The virtue of professional integrity demands that Engineer A's unique knowledge as the original designer be fully deployed in service of public safety — not partially deployed and then abandoned when the first point of contact fails to act. Engineer A's restraint, while perhaps legally defensible, does not reflect the moral character the engineering profession expects of its members.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.980705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A bears a continuing duty as the original designer to notify Jones before or simultaneously with notifying the town supervisor. This duty is grounded in the categorical obligation to protect public welfare and in the relational fact that Jones, as the current property owner, is the party with the most immediate legal authority and practical ability to remediate the structural deficiency. Deontological reasoning does not permit Engineer A to discharge a duty to protect public safety by notifying only a non-engineer municipal official who lacks both the technical competence to evaluate the risk and the demonstrated will to act on it. The duty to notify Jones is not merely instrumental — it is independently required by the principle that those with the authority and ability to prevent harm must be informed of the risk. Engineer A's failure to notify Jones at all constitutes a deontological gap in the discharge of his continuing safety obligation as the original designer.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.980776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer A had issued a written safety notification to Jones immediately upon learning of the barn modification, Jones would have been more likely to voluntarily commission a structural reassessment, potentially avoiding the need for regulatory escalation altogether. Jones, as the current owner, has both a financial interest in the property's structural integrity and a legal liability exposure if the barn collapses and causes injury. A written notification from the original designer — carrying professional authority and specificity about the load-bearing elements removed — would have created a documented record that Jones could not easily ignore. The voluntary remediation pathway through Jones is not only ethically preferable as a first step; it is also practically more efficient than routing the concern through a non-engineer municipal official. Engineer A's failure to pursue this pathway first represents a missed opportunity to resolve the safety concern through the most direct and capable channel available.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.980866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
cited provision3: Building_Structural_Safety_Investigation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer A had followed up the verbal town supervisor notification with a written report, the town supervisor would have been more likely to take action, and Engineer A's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code would have been more clearly satisfied. A written report creates formal accountability: it establishes a documented record that the supervisor received a specific, professionally grounded safety concern; it creates a paper trail that can be reviewed by higher authorities; and it signals to the recipient that the matter is serious enough to warrant formal documentation. The supervisor's verbal acknowledgment without follow-through suggests that the verbal-only notification was treated as informal and non-binding. A written report would have changed the character of the notification from an informal conversation to a formal professional advisory, making inaction more difficult to sustain and providing Engineer A with a clear basis for escalation to county or state building officials if the written notification was also ignored.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.981012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: BER_Case_00-5
cited provision3: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If the barn modification had posed an imminent rather than a non-imminent collapse risk — analogous to the condemned bridge scenario in BER 00-5 — Engineer A would have been obligated to bypass the town supervisor entirely and escalate immediately to county or state building officials, and potentially to notify barn occupants directly. The non-imminent nature of the snow-load risk does justify a more restrained, graduated escalation approach compared to BER 00-5's full-bore multi-authority response. However, this justification is conditional and time-limited: it permits Engineer A to begin with the town supervisor as the first point of contact, but it does not permit indefinite acceptance of inaction. The non-imminent character of the risk calibrates the pace and sequence of escalation — it does not eliminate the escalation obligation. Once the town supervisor failed to act, the non-imminent risk justification for restraint was exhausted, and the obligation to escalate to higher authorities was activated regardless of imminence.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.981704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer A had never sold the property and remained the owner at the time Jones proposed the barn extension, his ethical and legal obligations to prevent the structurally compromising modification would have been substantially stronger — encompassing both the authority to refuse the modification and the direct legal liability for any resulting harm. The act of property sale does not eliminate Engineer A's continuing public safety duty as the original designer, but it does reframe it: the post-sale obligation is properly characterized as a notification and escalation duty rather than a prevention or remediation duty. The sale transfers legal authority over the structure to Jones, which means Engineer A can no longer unilaterally prevent modifications or compel repairs. What persists is the ethical obligation to ensure that those who now hold that authority — Jones and the relevant regulatory bodies — are informed of the safety risk that Engineer A's unique design knowledge allows him to identify. The sale diminishes Engineer A's direct control but does not diminish the public safety imperative that his knowledge creates.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.981812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 101
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The most consequential unresolved tension in this case is between Public Welfare Paramount and Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing. The Board resolved the primary question — whether Engineer A fulfilled his ethical obligation — by affirming that notifying the town supervisor was sufficient. However, this resolution leaves the sequencing question entirely open: Jones, as the current property owner, holds both the legal authority to commission a structural reassessment and the practical ability to remediate the deficiency without regulatory compulsion. By bypassing Jones entirely and going directly to the town supervisor, Engineer A chose a regulatory escalation path over a direct remediation path. The Board's conclusion implicitly treats the town supervisor as the apex notification recipient, but this prioritization is not self-evident under the NSPE Code. Public welfare is best served by the fastest and most effective path to remediation, and notifying Jones first — or simultaneously — may have produced a quicker structural remedy than relying on a municipal official who ultimately took no action. The case thus teaches that Public Welfare Paramount does not automatically resolve notification sequencing in favor of regulatory authorities; the party with the most direct remediation capability may have an equal or stronger claim to priority notification.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 402
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between the Written Documentation Requirement for safety notification and the Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence principle was left unresolved by the Board in a way that creates a significant analytical gap. The Board affirmed Engineer A's verbal-only contact with the town supervisor as sufficient, implicitly treating the non-imminent character of the snow-load risk as a mitigating factor that reduces the documentation standard. However, these two principles do not operate on the same axis: imminence calibrates the speed and scope of escalation, while the written documentation requirement governs the form and evidentiary permanence of any notification made, regardless of urgency. A non-imminent risk does not logically justify a verbal-only notification; if anything, a non-imminent risk — where there is time to act deliberately — strengthens rather than weakens the case for written documentation, because the absence of urgency removes any excuse for informality. The case therefore teaches that proportionality and documentation are independent variables: proportionality governs how far and how fast Engineer A must escalate, while the written documentation requirement governs how each escalation step must be memorialized. Conflating the two — as the Board's implicit reasoning appears to do — risks allowing the non-imminent character of a risk to erode the evidentiary record that would be essential if the structure later collapses.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The deepest structural tension in this case — between the Persistent Escalation Obligation after town supervisor inaction and the Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence principle — reveals a fundamental ambiguity in how the NSPE Code's public welfare mandate applies when a non-engineer authority fails to act on a non-imminent but credible structural risk. The Board concluded that notifying the town supervisor was sufficient, but the town supervisor's subsequent inaction creates a new ethical situation that the Board's conclusion does not address. The Proportional Escalation principle, drawn from the contrast with BER 00-5's imminent bridge collapse scenario, suggests that Engineer A's restrained single-contact approach is appropriate for a non-imminent risk. However, the Persistent Escalation Obligation principle — grounded in the Code's unconditional public welfare mandate — holds that a non-engineer authority's failure to act is itself an independent trigger for further escalation, regardless of imminence. These two principles cannot be simultaneously fully satisfied: accepting the town's non-response as a terminal point satisfies proportionality but violates persistence; escalating to county or state building officials satisfies persistence but may exceed what proportionality demands for a non-imminent risk. The case teaches that the NSPE Code does not provide a clean resolution to this tension, and that the Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope principle — which distinguishes Engineer A's private-citizen role from the heightened obligations of a public-employee engineer in BER 00-5 — is the most plausible basis on which the Board implicitly resolved the conflict in favor of proportionality over persistence, though this resolution is never made explicit and leaves Engineer A's obligations after town inaction genuinely uncertain.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Consulting Engineering Firm Bridge Inspection Sealed Report Provider
type: ConsultingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (firm)', 'specialty': 'Bridge inspection and structural assessment'}
caseinvolvement: A consulting engineering firm that prepared, signed, and sealed a detailed bridge inspection report identifying seven pilings requiring replacement; Engineer A was expected to work with this firm to evaluate whether the crutch-pile remediation solution was adequate.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Local Government (BER 00-5)'}
relationships: {'type': 'collaborates_with', 'target': 'Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Consulting Design Engineer
sourcetext: a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
textreferences: Engineer A should have also worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective
textreferences: a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.555383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

County Commission Bridge Safety Decision Authority
type: CountyCommissionBridgeReopeningAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Elected legislative body', 'jurisdiction': 'County'}
caseinvolvement: The county commission that received Engineer A's safety explanation and a public petition of ~200 signatures requesting bridge reopening; ultimately decided not to reopen the bridge, acting in accordance with engineering safety recommendations in this instance.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'receives_petition_from', 'target': 'Public Petitioners'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: County Commission Bridge Reopening Authority
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge.
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.562055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Current Barn Owner Structural Safety Notification Recipient
type: BuildingOwnerSafetyRecommendationRecipient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Property owner', 'structure': 'Barn with structural integrity concerns'}
caseinvolvement: The current owner of the barn in the present case who should have been notified first by Engineer A regarding structural integrity concerns, and whose cooperation with safety recommendations bears on public safety outcomes.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'receives_notification_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
sourcetext: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
textreferences: Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.562351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: After verbally notifying the town supervisor of the barn's structural collapse risk and receiving no responsive action, should Engineer A treat the verbal contact as a sufficient discharge of his ethical obligation, follow up in writing with a defined response deadline, or escalate to county or state building officials?
focus: Engineer A's Post-Notification Obligations: Written Follow-Up and Escalation After Town Supervisor Inaction
option1: Follow up the verbal town supervisor notification with a formal written communication restating the specific structural concern (removal of load-bearing columns and footings), documenting the prior verbal contact, and specifying a reasonable deadline for the town to respond or act — with explicit notice that Engineer A will escalate to county or state building officials upon continued inaction.
option2: Accept the verbal notification to the town supervisor — the highest local authority in the jurisdiction — as a sufficient discharge of the public safety obligation, on the grounds that the non-imminent nature of the snow-load risk permits a restrained, proportionate response and that Engineer A, as a private citizen without institutional custodial responsibility, has done what the NSPE Code requires by placing the concern with the appropriate regulatory authority.
option3: Bypass further engagement with the town supervisor and escalate immediately to county or state building officials upon the supervisor's inaction, treating the non-engineer municipal official's failure to act as equivalent to the non-engineer override in BER 00-5 and applying the same full-bore multi-authority escalation response regardless of the non-imminent character of the risk.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Upon learning of the structurally compromising barn modification, should Engineer A notify Jones (the current property owner) before or simultaneously with contacting the town supervisor, or is routing the concern exclusively through the town supervisor an adequate discharge of the safety notification duty?
focus: Engineer A's Notification Sequencing: Should Jones (Current Owner) Have Been Notified Before or Simultaneously with the Town Supervisor?
option1: Issue a written notification to Jones simultaneously with contacting the town supervisor, identifying the specific structural concern (removal of load-bearing columns and footings), referencing Engineer A's original design knowledge, and recommending that Jones retain a licensed structural engineer to assess the modification's adequacy under severe snow load conditions — thereby placing the safety concern with the party most able to act while also engaging the regulatory channel.
option2: Contact the town supervisor as the appropriate first-line regulatory authority, treating the supervisor as the apex notification recipient for a non-imminent structural risk, and notify Jones only if the town supervisor fails to act within a reasonable period — on the grounds that regulatory channels should be exhausted before engaging the property owner directly when no current client relationship exists.
option3: Prioritize written notification to Jones as the party with the most immediate legal authority and practical remediation capacity, giving Jones a defined period to voluntarily commission a structural reassessment before escalating to the town supervisor and other regulatory authorities — on the grounds that voluntary owner-initiated remediation is both ethically preferable and practically more efficient than regulatory compulsion.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A calibrate his escalation scope to the non-imminent, limited nature of the barn's snow-load collapse risk — pursuing a proportionate multi-step response that distinguishes this case from BER 00-5's imminent bridge collapse — or does the Public Welfare Paramount principle demand the same full-bore multi-authority escalation regardless of imminence once a non-engineer authority fails to act?
focus: Proportional vs. Full-Bore Escalation: How the Non-Imminent Barn Risk Compares to BER 00-5's Imminent Bridge Collapse in Calibrating Engineer A's Escalation Scope
option1: Calibrate the escalation scope to the non-imminent nature of the barn risk by pursuing a proportionate multi-step response: issue a written follow-up to the town supervisor with a defined response deadline, notify Jones in writing simultaneously, and escalate to county or state building officials only upon continued inaction — distinguishing this approach from BER 00-5's immediate full-bore multi-authority campaign on the grounds of lesser imminence and Engineer A's private-citizen rather than public-employee role.
option2: Apply the same full-bore multi-authority escalation as BER 00-5 — notifying county and state building officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities immediately upon the town supervisor's inaction — on the grounds that the Public Welfare Paramount principle applies equally regardless of employment status or risk imminence, and that a non-engineer authority's failure to act is itself sufficient to trigger maximum escalation.
option3: Treat the single verbal contact with the town supervisor as a proportionate and complete discharge of the escalation obligation for a non-imminent, limited-scope structural risk, distinguishing the present case from BER 00-5 on the grounds that Engineer A's private-citizen role, the non-imminent character of the snow-load risk, and the town's own certificate-of-occupancy review collectively justify a more restrained approach that does not require further escalation after the supervisor's non-response.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A notify Jones (the current property owner) before or simultaneously with contacting the town supervisor, or is routing the safety concern exclusively through the town supervisor sufficient to discharge his ethical obligation?
focus: Engineer A — Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Sequencing: Whether Engineer A should have notified Jones, the current property owner, before or simultaneously with contacting the town supervisor upon learning of the structurally compromising barn modification.
option1: Issue a written safety notification to Jones as the current property owner before or simultaneously with contacting the town supervisor, identifying the specific structural concern — removal of load-bearing columns and footings — and recommending that Jones retain a licensed structural engineer to assess the modification's adequacy under severe snow load conditions.
option2: Contact the town supervisor as the primary regulatory authority first, then follow up with written notification to Jones if the supervisor fails to act within a defined response period, treating regulatory escalation as the appropriate first channel given the absence of a current client relationship with Jones.
option3: Route the safety concern exclusively through the town supervisor as the official regulatory authority with enforcement power, on the basis that Engineer A has no current client relationship with Jones and that regulatory channels are the appropriate mechanism for addressing structural safety concerns on property Engineer A no longer owns.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: After the town supervisor takes no action following Engineer A's verbal notification, should Engineer A follow up with written documentation and escalate to county or state building officials, or does the non-imminent nature of the snow-load risk permit acceptance of the supervisor's non-response as a terminal point?
focus: Engineer A — Written Documentation and Persistent Escalation After Town Supervisor Inaction: Whether Engineer A's verbal-only contact with the town supervisor satisfies his ethical obligation, or whether he must follow up in writing and escalate to higher authorities after the supervisor's failure to act.
option1: Issue a written confirmation to the town supervisor documenting the specific structural concern, the substance of the prior verbal contact, and a defined deadline for the town to respond or act — with explicit notice that Engineer A will escalate to county or state building officials if no action is taken within that period.
option2: Treat the verbal notification to the town supervisor as a complete discharge of Engineer A's ethical obligation, on the basis that the non-imminent nature of the snow-load risk permits a proportionally restrained single-contact approach and that Engineer A, as a private citizen without a current client relationship, has fulfilled his duty by alerting the appropriate local regulatory authority.
option3: Bypass further contact with the town supervisor and escalate directly to county or state building officials upon learning of the supervisor's inaction, treating the non-engineer municipal official's failure to act as an independent trigger for full escalation regardless of the non-imminent character of the risk.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A treat his post-sale status and the non-imminent character of the risk as factors that limit his safety reporting obligation to a single good-faith notification, or does his unique original-designer epistemic authority create a persistent, escalating duty to act regardless of the absence of a client relationship?
focus: Engineer A designed and built the barn as the property owner, then sold it to Jones. After the sale, with no current client relationship, contractual tie, or professional engagement with the property, Engineer A learned of a structural modification that he — as the original designer — uniquely recognized as creating a snow-load collapse risk. The threshold question is whether Engineer A's post-sale status as a private individual without a client relationship preserves, diminishes, or heightens his ethical duty to act on this structural safety concern, and whether the non-imminent character of the risk (compared to the imminent bridge collapse in BER 00-5) calibrates the scope of that duty.
option1: Treat the original-designer epistemic authority as creating a continuing, escalating ethical obligation that survives the property sale and the absence of a client relationship, requiring written notification to Jones and the town supervisor, followed by escalation to higher authorities upon inaction — calibrated in pace to the non-imminent risk but not terminated by a single unproductive verbal contact.
option2: Treat the post-sale status and non-imminent risk character as factors that limit the ethical obligation to a single good-faith notification to the highest available municipal authority, on the grounds that Engineer A has no ongoing professional relationship with the property, the risk is contingent rather than imminent, and the regulatory system bears responsibility for follow-through once notified.
option3: Treat the structural analogy to BER 00-5 — non-engineer inaction in the face of a structural safety concern — as the dominant ethical variable, requiring immediate multi-authority escalation to county and state building officials simultaneously with or immediately after the initial notification, without waiting for a graduated sequential response, on the grounds that the non-engineer town supervisor's inaction is structurally identical to the non-engineer override found ethically impermissible in BER 00-5.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:53:43.557903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Designs and Builds Barn
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer / Property Owner
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's professional reputation may be implicated in any future structural issues
foreseen unintended effects: Future owners may modify the structure without understanding the original structural design intent
fulfills obligation text: Competence: Applied engineering expertise to design a structurally sound structure
fulfills obligation text: Professional standards: Applied engineering judgment to original design
fulfills obligation text: Public safety: Designed structure to safely bear anticipated loads including snow loads
guided by principle text: Engineer in conformance with applicable codes and standards
guided by principle text: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
guided by principle text: Practice only within areas of competence
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Produce a structurally sound barn for personal use on his property
requires capability text: Foundation and footing design
requires capability text: Knowledge of applicable building codes
requires capability text: Load analysis including snow load calculations
requires capability text: Structural engineering design
temporal marker: Initial construction phase, approximately four years before sale
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A makes the professional decision to design and construct a barn with horse stalls on his own property, applying his engineering expertise to establish the original structural system including columns and footings.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.566035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Designs and Builds Barn → Barn Construction Completed
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A makes the professional decision to design and construct a barn with horse stalls on his property, establishing the original structural baseline
cause: Designs and Builds Barn
counterfactual: Without Engineer A's deliberate design and construction decision, no structurally engineered barn would have existed, and no subsequent structural integrity baseline would have been established
effect: Barn Construction Completed
necessary factors: Application of structural engineering knowledge to the design
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional decision to design the barn
necessary factors: Physical construction execution on owned property
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Combination of engineering expertise + property ownership + construction resources
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition — Engineer A BER 00-5 Employment Pressure
type: EmploymentSituationSafetyAbrogationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The non-engineer public works director directed the retired bridge inspector to evaluate the bridge and authorized the crutch pile solution, effectively overriding Engineer A's professional safety determination through institutional authority.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
constraintclass: Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from bowing to employment pressures or institutional hierarchy — including the non-engineer public works director's override — when great dangers to public safety were present; acquiescing to employment pressure in such circumstances would constitute an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6, 00-5
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout the bridge safety crisis and non-engineer override situation
textreferences: By failing to take this action, Engineer A would be ignoring his basic professional and ethical obligations.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.576354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer-Public-Safety-Escalation-Standard
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms on Engineer Duty to Escalate Public Safety Concerns
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Defines Engineer A's obligation to escalate his structural collapse concern beyond the town supervisor when the supervisor takes no action, potentially to state licensing authorities or the public
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.557599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Actionable Remedial Guidance — Jones Barn Structural Risk
type: ActionableStructuralRemediationGuidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Actionable Structural Remediation Guidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to formulate and communicate specific, actionable remedial guidance to Jones — such as recommending temporary bracing, load reduction, or structural assessment — proportionate to the assessed snow load collapse risk and sufficient to enable Jones to take immediate protective action.
casecontext: As the original designer with unique knowledge of the structural system, Engineer A was positioned to provide technically sound remedial guidance to Jones regarding the snow load collapse risk.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The obligation analysis identifies that Engineer A was required to provide Jones with specific actionable remedial guidance, including interim protective measures, pending full structural assessment and permanent repair.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.568781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Collaborative Adequacy Assessment
type: CrutchPileRemediationAdequacyCollaborativeAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Crutch Pile Remediation Adequacy Collaborative Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the signed and sealed bridge inspection report to determine whether the two crutch pile plus five-ton limit solution was structurally adequate, and to report findings to the supervisor.
casecontext: BER 00-5: non-engineer public works director directed installation of two crutch piles and reopening with five-ton limit without engineering validation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: BER obligation: Engineer A 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.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also 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.
textreferences: Engineer A should have also 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.576875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure
type: PublicPressureNon-SubordinationofBridgeClosureSafetyDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to maintain the bridge closure determination against a public rally and petition of approximately 200 signatures, by clearly explaining the extent of damages and replacement efforts to the County Commission, which ultimately decided not to reopen the bridge.
casecontext: BER Case No. 00-5 bridge closure scenario; public pressure resistance in face of organized community opposition
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Explaining the extent of bridge damages and replacement efforts to the County Commission in response to a public petition of ~200 signatures requesting reopening; County Commission decided not to reopen.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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. Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
textreferences: 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. Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.576633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice Determination
type: UnlicensedBridgeInspectorEngineeringPracticeDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Engineering Practice Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to determine whether the activities of the retired bridge inspector — who was not a licensed engineer and was directed by the non-engineer public works director to examine the bridge and recommend crutch pile installation — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and to report that determination to the state board.
casecontext: BER 00-5: retired bridge inspector (not a licensed engineer) examined bridge and recommended structural remediation solution
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: BER obligation: 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.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.577038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification — Barn Extension
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuingAuthoritySafetyRe-NotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that the town authority that issued the certificate of occupancy for Jones's barn extension was the appropriate regulatory party to notify of the newly discovered structural deficiency, given that authority's ongoing jurisdiction over the building's compliance with safety standards.
casecontext: The town reviewed and approved Jones's barn extension plans and issued a certificate of occupancy despite the structural modifications involving removal of load-bearing columns and footings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The obligation analysis identifies that Engineer A was required to notify the town building authority that issued the certificate of occupancy for the barn extension of the structural safety concern, as that authority had regulatory power to require corrective action.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.568481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Deadline-Conditioned County-State Escalation — Barn Snow Load
type: Deadline-ConditionedEscalationThreatCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Communication Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to communicate a conditional escalation threat to the town supervisor — clearly stating in writing that if adequate corrective steps were not taken within a specific period, he would bring the matter to county or state building officials — thereby creating a documented ultimatum motivating action and establishing the basis for subsequent escalation.
casecontext: The town supervisor's failure to act after verbal notification triggered Engineer A's obligation to issue a written deadline-conditioned escalation notice before proceeding to higher authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The obligation analysis identifies that after the town supervisor's inaction, Engineer A was obligated to issue a deadline-conditioned escalation threat before proceeding to county or state authorities.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.568264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Calibration — Barn Snow Load
type: ImminentvsNon-ImminentStructuralRiskEscalationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to correctly distinguish the barn snow load collapse risk — real but non-imminent and localized — from an imminent widespread danger, and to calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities contacted accordingly, applying a graduated rather than full-bore escalation response.
casecontext: The barn snow load collapse risk is non-imminent and localized, requiring a proportionate multi-step response rather than the full-bore escalation appropriate for imminent widespread danger.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The case involves a non-imminent structural collapse risk (snow load on a modified barn) requiring proportionate graduated escalation, distinguishable from the imminent bridge collapse scenario in BER 00-5 that required a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.568938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Learns of Modification
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Duty_To_Report_Safety_Hazards
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Public_Safety_Paramount
activates constraint: Professional_Knowledge_Duty_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from uninvolved former owner to ethically obligated professional; his professional knowledge of the original design creates a duty to act that cannot be ignored; the clock on reasonable response time begins
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Structural_Risk
creates obligation: Document_Concerns_In_Writing
creates obligation: Escalate_If_No_Action_Taken
creates obligation: Notify_Current_Owner
creates obligation: Notify_Town_Officials
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Unspecified time after barn extension completion
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A becomes aware that Jones has modified the barn by removing load-bearing structural elements, triggering his professional concern about collapse risk under severe snow loads. This moment of discovery initiates Engineer A's ethical obligation to respond.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Precedent Structural Safety Duty Synthesis — Barn Snow Load
type: Multi-PrecedentStructuralSafetyDutySynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Precedent Structural Safety Duty Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to synthesize multiple BER precedent cases establishing the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare in structural safety contexts, and to apply that synthesized framework to determine the appropriate step-by-step path forward for the barn snow load collapse risk.
casecontext: The barn snow load case is analyzed against multiple BER precedents to establish the scope and sequence of Engineer A's professional obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The case analysis draws on BER precedents including BER 00-5, 07-10, and others to establish Engineer A's obligations, requiring synthesis of multiple precedents to determine the appropriate graduated response.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.569216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification — Jones Before Town Supervisor
type: NewOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that Jones, as the current property owner, should have been notified of the structural collapse concern before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, so that Jones had the opportunity to take protective action and was not blindsided by regulatory intervention.
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor without first notifying Jones, the current property owner who had the most immediate ability to take protective action.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The case analysis identifies that Engineer A should have notified Jones first before escalating to the town supervisor, reflecting the principle that the owner has the most immediate ability to take protective measures.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.567522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A No-Current-Client-Relationship Safety Duty Recognition — Barn Post-Sale
type: No-Contractual-NexusThird-PartySafetyDisclosureDutyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Safety Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that the absence of any current client relationship with Jones — the new property owner — did not extinguish his professional duty to disclose the structural safety hazard, because the paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare creates that duty regardless of the absence of any contractual nexus.
casecontext: Engineer A had sold the property four years earlier and had no current professional relationship with Jones, yet recognized a duty to act on the structural safety concern.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A took action to notify the town supervisor despite having no contractual relationship with Jones or the town, demonstrating recognition that the safety duty persisted independently of any client relationship.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.567386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Collaboration — Jones Barn
type: Non-ImminentStructuralRiskPersistentClientCollaborationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Client Collaboration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to continue working collaboratively with Jones to pursue resolution of the snow load collapse risk alongside escalation to regulatory authorities, recognizing that client collaboration and regulatory escalation are complementary rather than mutually exclusive obligations.
casecontext: The non-imminent nature of the barn snow load risk allowed for a collaborative approach with Jones alongside regulatory escalation, rather than requiring immediate unilateral regulatory action.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The obligation analysis identifies that Engineer A should work with Jones to address the structural concern while also escalating to regulatory authorities, treating these as complementary duties.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: intermediate
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.569393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Capability
type: OriginalDesignerPost-SaleStructuralSafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Original Designer Post-Sale Structural Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn, possessed the capability to recognize that the sale of the property did not extinguish his professional duty to act when he learned of structural modifications creating a potential collapse risk, and to initiate notification based on his unique design knowledge.
casecontext: Engineer A sold the property four years prior but retained unique knowledge of the original structural design; upon learning of column and footing removal, he recognized a professional duty to act.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A learned of Jones's barn extension and recognized a potential collapse risk from snow loads, triggering his professional obligation to notify despite having no current client relationship with Jones.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
textreferences: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.554099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Persistent Safety Escalation After Town Supervisor Inaction
type: PersistentSafetyEscalationBeyondUnresponsiveAuthorityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that the town supervisor's failure to take action after verbal notification did not discharge his professional obligation, and to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to county or state building officials or other agencies having jurisdiction.
casecontext: After the town supervisor's inaction, Engineer A was obligated to escalate to county or state building officials — the next step in the graduated escalation sequence for a non-imminent structural risk.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The town supervisor agreed to investigate but took no action, requiring Engineer A to escalate beyond the unresponsive authority to higher governmental bodies with jurisdiction over building safety.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.568128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Structural-Modification Certificate of Occupancy Compliance Gap Recognition
type: Post-Structural-ModificationCertificateofOccupancyComplianceGapRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Structural-Modification Certificate of Occupancy Compliance Gap Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that the certificate of occupancy issued for Jones's barn extension may have been issued without adequate structural review, that the issuing authority may be unaware of the current structural deficiency, and that the professional obligation to notify the issuing authority arose independently of any contractual scope limitation.
casecontext: The certificate of occupancy was issued for a structurally modified barn without apparent recognition of the snow load collapse risk created by the column and footing removal.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The town approved the barn extension and issued a certificate of occupancy despite the removal of load-bearing columns and footings, creating a compliance gap that Engineer A — with his original design knowledge — was uniquely positioned to identify and report.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.568621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment — Barn Snow Load
type: PreliminaryStructuralInstabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to conduct a preliminary assessment of structural instability in the modified barn sufficient to form a professional judgment about collapse risk under snow loads without requiring a full structural investigation.
casecontext: Engineer A's preliminary assessment of the structural modification risk informed his decision to contact the town supervisor about the potential collapse danger.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Upon learning of the column and footing removal, Engineer A formed a professional judgment that the structure may be in danger of collapse, sufficient to trigger notification obligations.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.557131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Actionable Remedial Guidance to Jones
type: ActionableStructuralRemediationGuidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Actionable Structural Remediation Guidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A should have possessed the capability to formulate and communicate specific, actionable remedial guidance to Jones — such as recommending temporary bracing, load reduction, or structural assessment — proportionate to the assessed non-imminent collapse risk and sufficient to enable Jones to take immediate protective action.
casecontext: Present case: Jones as current property owner needs actionable guidance to address structural deficiency in barn following removal of load-bearing elements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Obligation identified in case analysis: Engineer A was obligated to provide Jones with specific, actionable remedial guidance regarding the barn structural risk arising from removal of load-bearing columns and footings.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
textreferences: Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.577705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuingAuthoritySafetyRe-NotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A should have possessed the capability to recognize that the town authority that issued the certificate of occupancy for Jones's barn extension was the appropriate regulatory party to notify of the structural safety deficiency, given that authority's ongoing jurisdiction over the building's compliance with safety standards.
casecontext: Present case: Jones obtained a certificate of occupancy for barn extension involving removal of load-bearing columns and footings; structural safety concern subsequently identified by Engineer A
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Obligation identified in case analysis: Engineer A was obligated to notify the town authority that issued the certificate of occupancy for Jones's barn extension of the structural safety concern arising from the removal of load-bearing columns and footings.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: From the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
textreferences: From the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.577567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification
type: OriginalDesignerPost-SaleStructuralSafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Original Designer Post-Sale Structural Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that, as the original designer of the barn with unique knowledge of its structural load calculations and design intent, the sale of the property did not extinguish the professional duty to act when he learned that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings, creating a potential snow load collapse risk.
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A originally designed barn, sold property to Jones, subsequently learned Jones removed load-bearing columns and footings and obtained certificate of occupancy for barn extension
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition of structural collapse risk based on original design knowledge and initiation of verbal notification to town supervisor upon learning of Jones's structural modifications.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn with unique knowledge of its structural load calculations and design intent, was obligated upon learning that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings to notify the current owner and relevant authorities
textreferences: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn with unique knowledge of its structural load calculations and design intent, was obligated upon learning that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings to notify the current owner and relevant authorities
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.577837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Proportionate Multi-Step Non-Imminent Structural Risk Response
type: ProportionateMulti-StepNon-ImminentStructuralRiskResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Proportionate Multi-Step Non-Imminent Structural Risk Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A should have possessed the capability to calibrate a multi-step response to the non-imminent barn collapse risk — sequencing notification to Jones first, followed by written confirmation to the town supervisor, followed by deadline-conditioned escalation to county or state building officials — proportionate to the non-imminent nature of the risk and distinguishable from the full-bore multi-authority campaign required in BER 00-5.
casecontext: Present case: calibrated multi-step escalation for non-imminent barn collapse risk contrasted with full-bore campaign required for imminent bridge collapse in BER 00-5
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Board's prescribed graduated response: notify Jones first, make written record, follow up verbal notification with written confirmation to town supervisor, monitor situation, and if no adequate response within reasonable period, issue deadline-conditioned escalation threat to county/state building officials.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: From the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
textreferences: From the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
textreferences: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Snow Load Structural Modification Risk Assessment
type: SnowLoadStructuralModificationRiskAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Snow Load Structural Modification Risk Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the technical capability to assess whether Jones's removal of load-bearing columns and footings compromised the barn's ability to safely carry design snow loads, drawing on original design calculations and knowledge of the structural system's load path, and to form a professional judgment about collapse risk sufficient to trigger safety notification obligations.
casecontext: Present case: structural assessment of barn modification impact on snow load capacity using original design knowledge
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's assessment that removal of load-bearing columns and footings created a potential snow load collapse risk, based on original design knowledge — leading to verbal notification of town supervisor.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn, was obligated to notify the current owner (Jones) and the town supervisor when he learned that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings, creating a potential snow load collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn, was obligated to notify the current owner (Jones) and the town supervisor when he learned that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings, creating a potential snow load collapse risk
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Written Safety Confirmation and Monitoring
type: WrittenCommunicationFollow-UpAfterVerbalSafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A should have possessed the capability to follow up the verbal communication to the town supervisor with a written confirmation restating the structural collapse concern, creating a documented record, and continuing to monitor the situation to determine whether adequate corrective steps were being taken.
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A verbally notified town supervisor but did not follow up in writing or monitor response
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Board direction that Engineer A should make a written record of communications with owner and town supervisor and follow verbal communication with written confirmation, restating concern and monitoring situation.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
textreferences: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.577398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case vs BER 00-5 Escalation Scope Calibration
type: ImminentvsNon-ImminentRiskEscalationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: The Board possessed the capability to systematically compare the present barn case against BER 00-5, identifying that the barn risk was not as imminent or widespread as the bridge collapse risk, and that Engineer A lacked specific institutional responsibility, thereby calibrating the required response to a proportionate graduated escalation rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
casecontext: Board comparison of present barn collapse risk case against BER 00-5 bridge collapse case to determine appropriate escalation scope
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Board analysis identifying three material distinctions: (1) danger not as imminent or widespread, (2) Engineer A not a public employee with specific bridge responsibility, (3) circumstances do not require full-bore campaign — leading to conclusion that graduated written notification to town supervisor with deadline-conditioned escalation is appropriate.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:21.871576+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer) and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: in BER Case No. 00-5, 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. In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.577239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Proportionate Multi-Step Non-Imminent Structural Risk Response — Barn
type: ProportionateMulti-StepNon-ImminentStructuralRiskResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Proportionate Multi-Step Non-Imminent Structural Risk Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to calibrate a multi-step response to the non-imminent barn snow load collapse risk — sequencing notification to Jones first, followed by written confirmation to the town supervisor, followed by deadline-conditioned escalation to county or state building officials — in a manner proportionate to the non-imminent nature of the risk.
casecontext: Engineer A's response to the barn snow load risk required a proportionate graduated escalation sequence, beginning with owner notification and proceeding through written confirmation and conditional escalation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The obligation analysis identifies a proportionate multi-step escalation sequence for Engineer A: notify Jones, contact the building authority, follow up in writing, and escalate to county/state officials if no action is taken — calibrated to the non-imminent nature of the risk.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.569079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Snow Load Structural Modification Risk Assessment
type: SnowLoadStructuralModificationRiskAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Snow Load Structural Modification Risk Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the technical capability to assess that removal of load-bearing columns and footings from the barn he originally designed created a collapse risk under severe snow loads, drawing on his original design calculations and knowledge of the structural load path.
casecontext: Engineer A applied his original design knowledge to assess the structural impact of Jones's modifications, identifying a snow load collapse risk that triggered his notification obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A evaluated the structural implications of Jones's barn extension — specifically the removal of columns and footings supporting the roof — and formed a professional judgment that the structure was in danger of collapse under severe snow loads.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.554250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Written Follow-Up After Verbal Town Supervisor Notification
type: WrittenCommunicationFollow-UpAfterVerbalSafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that his verbal notification to the town supervisor was insufficient to discharge his professional obligation, and to follow up with written confirmation restating the structural concerns, creating a documented record, and establishing a basis for further escalation after the town supervisor took no action.
casecontext: The town supervisor acknowledged the concern and agreed to investigate but took no action, triggering Engineer A's obligation to follow up with written confirmation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: After verbally notifying the town supervisor who agreed to investigate but took no action, Engineer A was obligated to follow up in writing — a step the case analysis identifies as required but not yet taken.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.567966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Written Third-Party Safety Notification — Jones Barn Structural Risk
type: WrittenThird-PartySafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize the professional obligation to notify Jones directly and in writing about the perceived structural deficiency and collapse risk, beyond any verbal notifications already provided to governmental authorities, ensuring Jones had documented, actionable safety information.
casecontext: Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor did not substitute for a direct written notification to Jones, the property owner most immediately affected by the structural risk.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The obligation analysis identifies that Engineer A was required to notify Jones in writing about the structural deficiency, providing documented safety information sufficient for Jones to take protective measures.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:33:08.519022+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.567660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A designs and builds the barn before Engineer A sells the property to Jones
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property. Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
from entity text: Engineer A designs and builds the barn
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A sells the property to Jones
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A sells the property to Jones
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A learns of the extension before Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned... Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter.
from entity text: Engineer A learns of the extension
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A notifies owner in writing before Engineer A notifies town supervisor in writing
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns... Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor.
from entity text: Engineer A notifies owner in writing
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A notifies town supervisor in writing
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A notifies town supervisor in writing
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A sells the property to Jones before Jones proposes and executes barn extension
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones. Later, Jones proposes to extend the barn.
from entity text: Engineer A sells the property to Jones
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Jones proposes and executes barn extension
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Jones proposes and executes barn extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor before no action taken by town supervisor
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
from entity text: Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: no action taken by town supervisor
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: no action taken by town supervisor
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Instance
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / NSPE Code of Ethics
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (NSPE-derived)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press 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 such other authorities as appropriate.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press 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 such other authorities as appropriate.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's duty to escalate safety concerns through a hierarchy of authorities — from supervisor to state/federal transportation officials, licensing board, county commissioners, and state officials — when a non-engineer overrides a safety determination
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.561484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation — Engineer A BER 00-5 Log Trucks and Tankers
type: Five-TonWeightLimitStrictEnforcementEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After crutch piles were installed and the bridge reopened with a five-ton limit, Engineer A observed log trucks and tankers crossing it regularly while school buses went around it.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
constraintclass: Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to immediately press the supervising authority for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit upon observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of the restriction, and if that escalation was ineffective, to contact state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: Engineer A observed that traffic is flowing and the significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A observed traffic violations of the five-ton limit through enforcement resolution
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic is flowing and the significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press 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 such other authorities as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.574128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Follow Up Verbally with Written Confirmation to Town Supervisor
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner
foreseen unintended effects: Could create friction with local governmental authority
foreseen unintended effects: May compel the town supervisor to act where verbal contact did not
foreseen unintended effects: Written record protects Engineer A professionally if harm later occurs
fulfills obligation text: Duty to document safety concerns formally with appropriate authorities
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to notify public authorities when public safety is at risk
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to persist in reporting when initial contact yields no action
fulfills obligation text: Professional obligation to create a record of safety-related communications
guided by principle text: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
guided by principle text: Engineers shall notify appropriate authorities when their professional judgment indicates a public safety risk
guided by principle text: Engineers should document professional communications involving safety
has agent: Engineer A (Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner), recommended action
has agent note: recommended action
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Create a formal written record of Engineer A's safety concern with the governmental authority having jurisdiction, prompting official action and establishing accountability for follow-through
multi agent: false
requires capability text: Knowledge of appropriate governmental authority and jurisdiction
requires capability text: Professional written communication skills
requires capability text: Structural engineering judgment to articulate the specific nature and basis of the risk
temporal marker: Recommended action following the verbal contact with the town supervisor that yielded no action
temporal sequence: 12
within competence: true
comment: As recommended by the Board, Engineer A should make the deliberate decision to follow up his verbal contact with the town supervisor with a formal written communication restating his structural safety concerns, thereby creating an official documented record and increasing accountability for governmental response.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.568345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Non-Response
type: GraduatedDeadline-ConditionedEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The town supervisor verbally acknowledged Engineer A's concern but took no action. The non-imminent nature of the barn collapse risk (as distinguished from the imminent bridge collapse in BER 00-5) required a proportionate graduated escalation rather than immediate full-bore multi-authority mobilization.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: After the town supervisor failed to take action following Engineer A's verbal notification, Engineer A was constrained to follow a graduated deadline-conditioned escalation pathway: (1) follow up verbally with written confirmation, (2) set a specific reasonable deadline for corrective action, (3) notify the supervisor in writing that failure to act within the deadline would require escalation to higher authorities, and (4) escalate to county or state building officials if the deadline passed without adequate response.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
temporalscope: After the town supervisor's failure to act following Engineer A's verbal notification
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.566775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence — Engineer A Present Case Barn Non-Imminent Risk
type: GraduatedEscalationCalibratedtoDangerImminenceandEmploymentContextConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Unlike BER 00-5 where Engineer A was a public employee with specific bridge responsibility, the present Engineer A was the original designer who had sold the property, with no current client relationship or public employment custodial role.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Present Case)
constraintclass: Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence and Employment Context Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, as a private engineer without custodial public employment responsibility for the barn, was required to follow a graduated escalation pathway — owner notification, written supervisor notification, deadline-conditioned escalation to building officials — rather than the immediate full-bore multi-authority campaign required of a public employee engineer with custodial responsibility for critical public infrastructure.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 00-5, 07-10
sourcetext: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
temporalscope: From identification of the structural concern through resolution
textreferences: from the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
textreferences: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.576044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

II.1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:53:43.555606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

II.1.f
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:53:43.555664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation — Engineer A BER 00-5 Bridge Collapse
type: ImminentWidespreadDangerFull-BoreMulti-AuthorityEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The bridge was 280 feet long, 30 feet above a stream, with rotten pilings, and was being used by log trucks and tankers in violation of the five-ton limit after a non-engineer authorized a crutch pile solution without engineering validation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
constraintclass: Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Given the imminent and widespread nature of the bridge collapse risk, Engineer A was required to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities — prohibiting reliance on a single notification or graduated approach given the gravity and imminence of the danger.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6, 00-5
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the moment the non-engineer override and safety violations were identified through resolution
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.575290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Issue Written Ultimatum with Escalation Deadline
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner
foreseen unintended effects: Escalation to state or county officials may trigger formal investigations with consequences for Jones as property owner
foreseen unintended effects: Establishes clear professional record of Engineer A's diligence in pursuing safety remediation
foreseen unintended effects: May create adversarial relationship with local governmental officials
fulfills obligation text: Duty to escalate when lower-level authorities fail to act on known safety risks
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to notify appropriate authorities at successively higher levels when initial contacts are ineffective
fulfills obligation text: Professional obligation to follow through on safety concerns rather than abandoning them after initial notification
fulfills obligation text: Sustained obligation to protect public health and safety through persistent reporting
guided by principle text: Engineers must persist in reporting safety concerns through appropriate channels until action is taken
guided by principle text: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
guided by principle text: Engineers shall not be deterred from fulfilling their safety obligations by inaction of authorities
has agent: Engineer A (Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner), recommended action
has agent note: recommended action
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Compel governmental action by establishing a formal deadline and communicating the consequence of escalation to higher authorities, thereby protecting public safety through increased pressure on local officials
multi agent: false
requires capability text: Knowledge of the hierarchy of building safety authorities at local, county, and state levels
requires capability text: Professional written communication and documentation skills
requires capability text: Structural engineering judgment to sustain and articulate the basis for the safety concern
temporal marker: Recommended future action if no adequate response is received within a reasonable period after written notification to town supervisor
temporal sequence: 13
within competence: true
comment: As recommended by the Board, if no action is taken within a reasonable period following written notification, Engineer A should make the deliberate decision to issue a formal written ultimatum to the town supervisor specifying a deadline after which Engineer A will escalate the matter to county or state building officials.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.569255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Issue Written Ultimatum with Escalation Deadline → Structural Collapse Risk Persists (potential resolution)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As recommended by the Board, if no action is taken within a reasonable period following written notification, Engineer A should issue a written ultimatum with an escalation deadline, representing the final recommended intervention to compel corrective action and resolve the persistent structural collapse risk
cause: Issue Written Ultimatum with Escalation Deadline
counterfactual: Without a written ultimatum with a defined escalation deadline, Jones and the town supervisor face no formal accountability mechanism, making continued inaction the path of least resistance and leaving the structural collapse risk unresolved
effect: Structural Collapse Risk Persists (potential resolution)
necessary factors: A formal deadline creating legal and regulatory accountability
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional ethical obligation to protect public safety
necessary factors: Prior written notifications to Jones and town supervisor having failed to produce action
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Written ultimatum with deadline + threat of further escalation (e.g., reporting to state licensing board or public authorities) = sufficient pressure to compel corrective action or trigger regulatory enforcement
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier
type: BuildingOwnerSafetyRecommendationRecipient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'relationship_to_property': 'Current owner post-sale', 'action_taken': 'Removed structural columns and footings as part of barn extension'}
caseinvolvement: Purchased the property from Engineer A; proposed and executed a barn extension that involved removing load-bearing columns and footings; obtained town approval and certificate of occupancy for the modification.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:01.783764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:01.783764+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'approved_by', 'target': 'Town Municipal Certificate Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'purchased_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
sourcetext: Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones
textreferences: Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.555086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Jones removes columns and footings during Jones executes barn extension
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
from entity text: Jones removes columns and footings
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Jones executes barn extension
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Jones executes barn extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation — Barn Structural Collapse Risk
type: Multi-AuthorityEscalationObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which the town supervisor fails to act through resolution of the safety risk
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: State building authority
affectedparties: Town building authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
stateclass: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to escalate the structural safety concern beyond the town supervisor to building officials, state authorities, or other agencies with jurisdiction
terminatedby: Regulatory action by a competent authority, structural remediation, or Engineer A's exhaustion of escalation pathways
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
triggeringevent: Town supervisor's inaction following verbal acknowledgment of the structural safety concern
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.560218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Municipal-Building-Ordinance
type: MunicipalBuildingOrdinance
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Local municipal government
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Town Building Ordinance Governing Structural Modifications
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Municipal Building Ordinance
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued
usedby: Town officials in approving the barn extension; Engineer A in evaluating adequacy of regulatory review
usedincontext: The town approved Jones's structural modifications and issued a certificate of occupancy; the municipal ordinance defines the review process and safety standards the town was obligated to apply when approving removal of load-bearing columns and footings
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.558326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount when he becomes aware that structural modifications to his former design may create a collapse risk under severe snow loads, and to escalate beyond the town supervisor when no action is taken
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.556376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation reaches in seeking corrective action.
textreferences: Engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation reaches in seeking corrective action.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in deliberating Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding public health and safety, escalation duties, and professional conduct throughout the case analysis
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.556694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor — Engineer A Present Case Barn
type: NewPropertyOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, the original designer of the barn, learned that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings under a town-approved extension. Engineer A notified the town supervisor verbally but the Board found it would have been more appropriate to first notify Jones.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Present Case)
constraintclass: New Property Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to first notify Jones, the current barn owner, of the structural integrity concerns before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor — prohibiting direct escalation to governmental authorities without first ensuring the property owner had been informed and given the opportunity to take corrective action.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
temporalscope: At the point when Engineer A identified the structural collapse risk from the barn modifications
textreferences: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.575442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

New Property Owner Priority Notification — Engineer A Must Notify Jones Before or With Town Supervisor
type: NewPropertyOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor about the structural collapse risk without any indication that Jones had been notified first. The BER established that the property owner should be notified before or alongside governmental escalation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: New Property Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to notify Jones, the current property owner, of the structural collapse concern before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor — the property owner's direct interest in the safety of their own property created a priority notification right that preceded or accompanied official governmental escalation.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
temporalscope: Prior to or concurrent with Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.566174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

No-Black-and-White-Standard Fact-Specific Calibration — Engineer A Barn vs. BER 00-5 Bridge
type: Multi-BER-PrecedentProportionalSafetyResponseSpectrumConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, original designer of a barn now owned by Jones, observed that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings under a town-approved extension, creating a potential snow-load collapse risk. The Board distinguished this from BER 00-5's imminent bridge collapse.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Multi-BER-Precedent Proportional Safety Response Spectrum Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A could not apply a single universal escalation standard to the barn structural risk situation; the appropriate response had to be calibrated to the specific facts — including the non-imminent nature of the barn risk, the private property context, and the absence of a public employment custodial role — distinguishing it from the full-bore campaign required in BER Case 00-5.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Board of Ethical Review; BER Cases 00-5, 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
sourcetext: There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A identified the structural concern through resolution
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
textreferences: each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.569604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Non-Engineer Public Works Director Safety Override Resistance — Engineer A BER 00-5
type: Non-EngineerAuthoritySafetyOverrideResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director overrode the engineering safety closure by directing a retired non-engineer bridge inspector to evaluate the bridge and authorizing a crutch pile solution that Engineer A had not validated.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from acquiescing to the non-engineer public works director's decision to reopen the bridge based on a retired non-engineer inspector's assessment, and was required to resist that override by escalating to supervisors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6, 00-5
sourcetext: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
temporalscope: From the moment the non-engineer public works director authorized the crutch pile solution and bridge reopening through resolution
textreferences: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press 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 such other authorities as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.574603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Notify Current Owner in Writing
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner
foreseen unintended effects: Jones may dispute Engineer A's assessment or take no action
foreseen unintended effects: Owner notification may prompt faster remediation than governmental channels alone
foreseen unintended effects: Written notification creates a formal record that could have legal implications for both parties
fulfills obligation text: Duty to notify the directly affected party of known safety risks
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public health and safety
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to create a documented record of safety concern communication
fulfills obligation text: Respect for Jones's property rights and autonomy as owner
guided by principle text: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
guided by principle text: Engineers should communicate safety concerns to those with the authority and responsibility to act
guided by principle text: Professional communications involving safety should be documented in writing
has agent: Engineer A (Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner), recommended action
has agent note: recommended action
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Ensure the current owner is formally informed of the structural risk so that Jones can take voluntary corrective action and so that Engineer A has fulfilled his duty to the directly affected party
multi agent: false
requires capability text: Ability to convey technical concerns clearly to a non-engineer property owner
requires capability text: Professional written communication skills
requires capability text: Structural engineering judgment to articulate the specific nature of the risk
temporal marker: Recommended action following verbal contact with town supervisor that yielded no result
temporal sequence: 11
within competence: true
comment: As recommended by the Board, Engineer A should make the deliberate decision to formally notify Jones, the current property owner, in writing of his structural integrity concerns regarding the barn modification before or alongside contacting governmental authorities.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.568306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation — Engineer A Barn
type: Post-SaleOriginalDesignerContinuingSafetyObligationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A designed and built the barn, then sold the property. Four years later, Jones removed load-bearing structural elements under town approval. Engineer A learned of this and formed a concern about collapse risk, but had no current client relationship or contractual obligation to Jones or the property.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's sale of the property to Jones did not extinguish his professional duty to act on structural safety concerns arising from his original design — he remained obligated to notify Jones and relevant authorities upon learning of the potentially dangerous structural modifications.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A learned of the structural modifications to the barn he originally designed
textreferences: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.563151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Property Ownership Transferred
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_A_Loss_Of_Control_Over_Structure
activates constraint: Third_Party_Reliance_On_Original_Design
causes state change: Jones becomes the new owner with full legal authority over the property; Engineer A loses direct ability to control or monitor structural modifications; professional accountability for original design remains with Engineer A
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Disclose_Known_Structural_Limitations_If_Material
creates obligation: Transfer_Relevant_Design_Information_If_Requested
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Year 4 (four years after construction)
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: low
comment: Legal ownership of the property, including the barn, passes from Engineer A to Jones upon completion of the sale. Engineer A relinquishes direct control over the property and any future modifications to the structure.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Proportionality Calibration Non-Imminent Barn vs. Imminent Bridge — Engineer A Present Case vs. BER 00-5
type: ProportionalityCalibrationBetweenImminentandNon-ImminentStructuralRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board distinguished the present barn case from BER 00-5 on grounds of danger imminence, breadth, and employment context — finding that the limited nature of the barn danger did not require the full-bore campaign mandated in BER 00-5.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Present Case)
constraintclass: Proportionality Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to calibrate the escalation response to the non-imminent, localized barn structural risk proportionately — requiring graduated written notification rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required in BER 00-5 — prohibiting both under-response that treats verbal notification alone as discharge and over-response that treats the barn risk as equivalent to the imminent bridge collapse.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 00-5, 07-10
sourcetext: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's response to the barn structural concern
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
textreferences: it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.575895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Proportionality Calibration — Engineer A Non-Imminent Barn Risk vs. BER 00-5 Imminent Bridge Risk
type: ProportionalityCalibrationBetweenImminentandNon-ImminentStructuralRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The barn collapse risk was non-imminent (dependent on severe snow loads) and localized (private property, limited occupancy), distinguishing it from the imminent bridge collapse risk in BER 00-5 that required immediate multi-authority escalation. The proportionality constraint calibrated Engineer A's response to the actual severity and imminence of the risk.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Proportionality Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's escalation response to the barn structural collapse risk was constrained to be proportionate to the non-imminent, localized nature of the risk — requiring graduated escalation rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign that would be required for an imminent, widespread danger such as the bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10; BER Case 00-5 (distinguished)
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's response to the structural safety concern
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.566942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Public Employee Heightened Bridge Safety Escalation — Engineer A BER 00-5 Custodial Responsibility
type: PublicEmployeeHeightenedBridgeSafetyEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was an engineer with a local government who had specific responsibility for the bridge in question, distinguishing the BER 00-5 obligations from those of Engineer A in the present barn case where no such custodial public employment role existed.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
constraintclass: Public Employee Heightened Bridge Safety Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: As a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge, Engineer A bore a heightened escalation obligation requiring immediate and comprehensive multi-authority action — beyond what would be required of a private engineer in an analogous situation — arising from the dual role as both a professional engineer and a public employee with custodial responsibility for the bridge.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as the responsible government engineer for the bridge
textreferences: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.574756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Public Pressure Non-Subordination — Engineer A BER 00-5 Bridge Closure Petition
type: PublicPressureSafetyDeterminationNon-SubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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. Engineer A explained the extent of damages and efforts underway to replace the bridge.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
constraintclass: Public Pressure Safety Determination Non-Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from subordinating the bridge closure safety determination to the public rally and petition of approximately 200 signatures requesting reopening; the paramount safety obligation was non-negotiable regardless of public opposition.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the moment the petition was presented to the County Commission through resolution of the bridge safety issue
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.564523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A originally designed and built the barn, sold the property to Jones, and later learned that Jones removed load-bearing columns and footings as part of an approved extension, creating a perceived collapse risk under severe snow loads.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's professional obligation to hold public safety paramount required him to take affirmative action upon learning that structural modifications to his former design may create a collapse risk under severe snow loads, regardless of the absence of a current client relationship or contractual duty.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I — Fundamental Canons; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A learned of the structural modifications and formed a concern about collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.563004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.981846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.981878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.981909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.981940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.981971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Has Engineer A fulfilled his ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.980456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Should Engineer A have notified Jones, the new property owner, before or simultaneously with contacting the town supervisor, given that Jones is the party with both the legal authority and practical ability to remediate the structural deficiency?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.980546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the town create a false sense of structural safety that heightens Engineer A's ethical obligation to act, given that the town's own approval process failed to detect the structural compromise?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: What is the threshold of certainty Engineer A must have about the structural collapse risk before his ethical obligation to escalate is triggered — and does a good-faith concern based on his original design knowledge suffice, even without a formal re-inspection of the modified structure?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does Engineer A bear any residual professional liability or ethical responsibility for the original design of the barn that persists after the property sale, and does that post-sale obligation change in character when a third party's modifications — not Engineer A's original design — create the safety risk?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.983951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Public Welfare Paramount conflict with the principle of Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing when notifying Jones first — rather than the town — might delay action if Jones is unresponsive, thereby prolonging public exposure to collapse risk?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How does the Written Documentation Requirement for safety notification conflict with the Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence principle — specifically, does the non-imminent nature of the snow load risk justify Engineer A's verbal-only approach to the town supervisor, or does the written documentation requirement apply regardless of imminence?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Persistent Escalation Obligation after town supervisor inaction conflict with the Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence principle — that is, does the non-imminent character of the barn's snow load risk permit Engineer A to accept the town's non-response without further escalation to county or state building officials, or does persistent inaction by a non-engineer authority independently trigger a duty to escalate regardless of imminence?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope principle — which distinguishes Engineer A's present private-citizen role from the heightened public-employee obligations in BER 00-5 — conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle, which applies equally regardless of employment status and may demand the same full-bore multi-authority escalation in both cases when a non-engineer authority fails to act?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill a categorical duty to protect public safety by relying solely on a verbal notification to the town supervisor, given that the NSPE Code of Ethics imposes an affirmative obligation to hold public welfare paramount regardless of whether a client relationship exists?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's choice to notify only the town supervisor verbally — rather than also notifying Jones in writing and escalating to county or state building officials after the supervisor's inaction — produce the best achievable outcome for the safety of barn occupants and the public at risk from a snow-load collapse?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of an original designer by stopping at a single verbal contact with the town supervisor, or did that restraint fall short of the diligence and persistence a virtuous engineer would exercise when a structure they designed faces a credible collapse risk?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A bear a continuing duty as the original designer to notify Jones — the current property owner — before or simultaneously with notifying the town supervisor, given that Jones is the party with the most immediate legal authority and practical ability to remediate the structural deficiency?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had issued a written safety notification to Jones immediately upon learning of the barn modification — before contacting the town supervisor — would Jones have been more likely to voluntarily commission a structural reassessment, potentially avoiding the need for regulatory escalation altogether?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had followed up the verbal town supervisor notification with a written report — creating a formal record of the structural concern — would the town supervisor have been more likely to take action, and would Engineer A's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code have been more clearly satisfied?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the barn modification had posed an imminent rather than a non-imminent collapse risk — analogous to the condemned bridge scenario in BER 00-5 — would Engineer A have been obligated to bypass the town supervisor entirely and escalate immediately to county or state building officials, and does the non-imminent nature of the snow-load risk fully justify the more restrained single-contact approach taken?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had never sold the property and remained the owner at the time Jones proposed the barn extension, would Engineer A's ethical and legal obligations to prevent the structurally compromising modification have been substantially stronger, and does the act of property sale meaningfully diminish — or merely reframe — the original designer's continuing public safety duty?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.984719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.986662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:53:43.557688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T19:53:43.557727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T17:00:13.982630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Retired Bridge Inspector Unlicensed Structural Assessor
type: UnlicensedBridgeInspectorPerformingEngineeringAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (retired inspector, not a PE)', 'status': 'Retired'}
caseinvolvement: A retired bridge inspector without a professional engineering license who was directed by the non-engineer public works director to examine the compromised bridge; his findings were used to justify the crutch-pile remediation and reopening decision, constituting unlicensed engineering practice and triggering Engineer A's reporting obligation to the state licensure board.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'Non-Engineer Public Works Director Bridge Remediation Decision Maker'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_report', 'target': 'Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Performing Engineering Assessment
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.554942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Sells Property to Jones
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer / Seller
foreseen unintended effects: Critical structural elements such as load-bearing columns and footings may be modified by a non-engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's professional knowledge of the structure's design would no longer be formally attached to the property
foreseen unintended effects: New owner may alter the structure without engineering review
fulfills obligation text: Property owner's legal right to sell personal property
guided by principle text: Engineers shall act in a manner that protects public health and safety
guided by principle text: Engineers should communicate relevant technical information to affected parties
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Transfer ownership of property to Jones; divest himself of the property
requires capability text: Ability to communicate structural design intent to non-engineers
requires capability text: Awareness of which structural elements are critical and should not be modified
temporal marker: Four years after original barn construction
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Arguably, proactive duty to inform buyer of critical structural design features and load-bearing elements that should not be altered without engineering review
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A makes the volitional decision to sell the property, including the barn he designed and built, to Jones, transferring ownership and formal responsibility for the structure without documented communication of structural design intent or load-bearing element locations.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.566983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Sells Property to Jones → Property Ownership Transferred
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A makes the volitional decision to sell the property, including the barn he designed and built, transferring legal ownership and control to Jones
cause: Sells Property to Jones
counterfactual: Had Engineer A retained ownership, Jones would have had no authority to modify the barn; had Engineer A disclosed structural dependencies at sale, Jones may have been deterred from unsafe modifications
effect: Property Ownership Transferred
necessary factors: Absence of structural disclosure or deed restrictions
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional decision to sell
necessary factors: Jones's willingness to purchase
necessary factors: Legal transfer of title and property rights
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Completed sale transaction + absence of structural warnings = transfer of control without informed stewardship
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Severe-Snow-Load-Structural-Design-Standard
type: SevereWeatherStructuralDesignStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Standards bodies (e.g., ASCE 7 or equivalent)
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Structural Design Standards for Severe Snow Loads
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Severe Weather Structural Design Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
usedby: Engineer A in assessing structural adequacy of the modified barn
usedincontext: Provides the technical basis for Engineer A's concern that removing columns and footings from the original barn design creates a collapse risk under severe snow loads
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.557902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Structural-Load-Calculation-Standard
type: StructuralLoadCalculationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional structural engineering standards bodies
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Structural Load Calculation Standards for Building Elements
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:24:50.189616+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Structural Load Calculation Standard
sourcetext: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating the structural impact of Jones's modifications
usedincontext: Provides technical methodology for assessing whether the removal of columns and footings from the original barn structure compromises the load-bearing capacity of the roof under snow loads
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.558035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Structural Collapse Risk Persists
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Must_Act_Without_Delay
activates constraint: Imminent_Hazard_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Public_Safety_Paramount
causes state change: The structure represents an active, ongoing public safety hazard; every day without remediation increases cumulative risk; the ethical obligation on Engineer A intensifies with the passage of time and approach of severe weather seasons
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Consider_Public_Disclosure_If_All_Channels_Fail
creates obligation: Escalation_To_County_Or_State_If_No_Action
creates obligation: Immediate_Written_Notification_To_Owner
creates obligation: Immediate_Written_Notification_To_Town
emergency status: critical
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Ongoing, from completion of barn extension through end of case narrative
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: critical
comment: As a result of the unaddressed structural modification, the barn continues to present an ongoing risk of collapse under severe snow load conditions, with no remediation action taken by any party. This is a continuing state of hazard affecting all who occupy or visit the structure.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Town Certificate Issued
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Institutional_Approval_Does_Not_Override_Engineering_Safety
activates constraint: Town_Accountability_Constraint
causes state change: Structure now carries official government approval; this creates institutional inertia against safety challenges and may discourage Jones from taking concerns seriously; Engineer A must now contend with an officially approved but potentially unsafe structure
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Cannot_Rely_On_Approval_As_Sufficient_Safety_Check
creates obligation: Town_Must_Respond_To_Engineer_Safety_Concerns
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During or immediately after barn extension construction
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: medium
comment: The town formally approves Jones's barn extension and issues a certificate of occupancy, providing official but potentially unwarranted legal sanction for the structurally modified barn. This approval creates a false assurance of safety.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Town Certificate Issued → Structural Collapse Risk Persists
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The town formally approves Jones's barn extension and issues a certificate of occupancy, providing official but unwarranted legitimacy to a structurally compromised modification, thereby allowing the dangerous condition to persist unchallenged
cause: Town Certificate Issued
counterfactual: Had the town required a licensed structural engineer's sign-off before issuing the certificate, the removal of load-bearing elements would likely have been identified and remediation required before occupancy
effect: Structural Collapse Risk Persists
necessary factors: Issuance of certificate of occupancy without verifying load-bearing integrity
necessary factors: Resulting false assurance discouraging further scrutiny by Jones or others
necessary factors: Town's failure to conduct adequate structural review prior to approval
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Town/Municipal Authority
sufficient factors: Official approval without structural verification + Jones's reliance on approval + absence of engineer oversight = persistent unaddressed collapse risk
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Town Certificate of Occupancy Authority
type: CountyBuildingOfficialCertificateofOccupancyAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Municipal regulatory authority', 'authority': 'Building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance', 'action_taken': 'Approved extension and issued certificate of occupancy'}
caseinvolvement: Reviewed and approved Jones's barn extension plans and issued a certificate of occupancy, despite the structural modifications involving removal of load-bearing columns and footings.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:01.783764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:01.783764+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'approved_work_of', 'target': 'Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier'}
relationships: {'type': 'failed_to_respond_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.559266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Town Supervisor Takes No Action
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Cannot_Rely_On_Verbal_Assurances
activates constraint: Escalation_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Written_Notification_Required_Constraint
causes state change: Verbal communication channel has failed; Engineer A can no longer rely on informal resolution; the ethical obligation escalates to require formal written notification and preparation for escalation to higher authorities; the risk to public safety remains unaddressed
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_All_Communications
creates obligation: Prepare_To_Escalate_To_County_Or_State_Officials
creates obligation: Send_Written_Notification_To_Owner
creates obligation: Send_Written_Notification_To_Town_Supervisor
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: Despite agreeing to investigate Engineer A's verbal safety concerns, the town supervisor fails to take any concrete action to address the potential structural risk. This institutional inaction escalates the ethical stakes for Engineer A.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Town Supervisor Written Safety Notification Recipient
type: WrittenSafetyNotificationRecipientMunicipalSupervisor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'title': 'Town Supervisor', 'jurisdiction': 'Town (present case)'}
caseinvolvement: The town supervisor in the present case who is the highest local authority in the jurisdiction, received verbal notification from Engineer A about structural concerns with the barn, and whose failure to take corrective action within a reasonable period would trigger Engineer A's obligation to escalate to county or state building officials.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'authority_over', 'target': 'Current Barn Owner (indirectly, via building code enforcement)'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_notification_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Written Safety Notification Recipient Municipal Supervisor
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
textreferences: Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials
textreferences: Engineer A should make 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
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.562197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Unlicensed_Practice_Reporting_Standard_Instance
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / State Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard (NSPE-derived)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:19.864245+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in assessing Engineer A's obligations regarding the retired bridge inspector
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and recommending a structural solution without an engineering license — constituted unlicensed practice of engineering reportable to the state board
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.561640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Reporting — Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge. A decision was then made to install two crutch piles and reopen the bridge with a five-ton limit based on this non-engineer's assessment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
constraintclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to determine whether the activities of the retired bridge inspector — who was not a licensed engineer and was directed by a non-engineer public works director to examine the bridge and recommend a structural solution — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and if so, to report those activities to the state engineering licensure board.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; State Engineering Practice Act
sourcetext: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
temporalscope: After the retired bridge inspector's activities became known to Engineer A
textreferences: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: In addition, 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.574456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up — Engineer A to Town Supervisor Barn
type: Verbal-OnlySafetyNotificationWrittenFollow-UpConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally notified the town supervisor of the structural collapse risk from the barn modifications. The Board found Engineer A should have made a written record and followed up the verbal communication with written confirmation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Present Case)
constraintclass: Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
constraintstatement: After verbally notifying the town supervisor of the structural collapse risk, Engineer A was required to follow up that verbal communication with a written confirmation restating the structural concern — prohibiting reliance on the verbal notification alone as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
temporalscope: After the verbal notification to the town supervisor and before or concurrent with monitoring the situation
textreferences: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.575583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Verbally Contacts Town Supervisor
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's professional credibility and fulfillment of ethical duty may be difficult to demonstrate if harm later occurs
foreseen unintended effects: Verbal communication creates no formal record of Engineer A's concern
foreseen unintended effects: Without a written record, the town supervisor may deprioritize or ignore the concern without accountability
fulfills obligation text: Acted on professional judgment that the structure posed a risk to public health and safety
fulfills obligation text: Contacted a governmental authority with jurisdiction over the matter
fulfills obligation text: Partial fulfillment of duty to report known safety hazards to appropriate authority
guided by principle text: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
guided by principle text: Engineers shall notify appropriate authorities when public safety is endangered
guided by principle text: Engineers should document professional communications involving safety concerns
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Alert the town supervisor to the potential structural danger so that official action could be taken to prevent collapse under severe snow loads
requires capability text: Knowledge of snow load requirements and their implications for the modified structure
requires capability text: Structural engineering judgment to assess collapse risk from modified load-bearing elements
requires capability text: Understanding of appropriate governmental authorities to contact
temporal marker: After learning of the barn extension, at an unspecified time post-sale
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Duty to document safety communications in writing to create a formal record
violates obligation text: Duty to notify the current owner (Jones) first before or alongside contacting the town
violates obligation text: Obligation to follow up verbal contact with written confirmation to ensure accountability
within competence: true
comment: Upon learning of Jones's barn extension and the removal of load-bearing columns and footings, Engineer A makes the decision to act on his safety concerns by verbally contacting the town supervisor to report the potential structural danger, rather than initiating written or more formal notification.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.567021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Verbally Contacts Town Supervisor → Town Supervisor Takes No Action
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Upon learning of Jones's barn extension and the removal of load-bearing columns and footings, Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor to report safety concerns, but despite agreeing to investigate, the town supervisor fails to take any corrective action
cause: Verbally Contacts Town Supervisor
counterfactual: Had Engineer A followed up verbally with written confirmation, the town supervisor would have faced greater accountability; had the town supervisor acted on the verbal report, the structural risk could have been addressed before escalation
effect: Town Supervisor Takes No Action
necessary factors: Engineer A's verbal report to the town supervisor
necessary factors: Town supervisor's acknowledgment of the concern
necessary factors: Town supervisor's subsequent failure to follow through on investigation
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Town Supervisor (primary); Engineer A (secondary for relying solely on verbal notification)
sufficient factors: Verbal-only notification without written follow-up + town supervisor inaction = unresolved safety hazard
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Written Third-Party Safety Notification — Engineer A to Jones Barn Owner
type: WrittenThird-PartySafetyNotificationBuildingOwnersConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A identified that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings from the original barn design, creating a potential snow-load collapse risk. The Board found Engineer A should have made a written record of communications with the owner.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Present Case)
constraintclass: Written Third-Party Safety Notification Building Owners Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to notify Jones, the current barn owner, in writing about the perceived structural deficiency and collapse risk — prohibiting reliance on verbal-only notification to the property owner as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation given the severity of the potential collapse risk.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
temporalscope: At the point when Engineer A identified the structural collapse risk and before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.576496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

authorization for bridge replacement obtained before state and federal department reviews
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced. Several departments in the state and federal transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks before the funds could be used.
from entity text: authorization for bridge replacement obtained
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: state and federal department reviews
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: state and federal department reviews
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

barn extension built meets certificate of occupancy issued
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: meets
evidence: The extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
from entity text: barn extension built
owl time property: time:intervalMeets
to entity text: certificate of occupancy issued
comment: Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
interval meets: certificate of occupancy issued
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

barricades erected on Friday before barricades found dumped on Monday
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon. On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river.
from entity text: barricades erected on Friday
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: barricades found dumped on Monday
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: barricades found dumped on Monday
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

barricades found dumped before more permanent barricades installed
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river... More permanent barricades and signs were installed.
from entity text: barricades found dumped
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: more permanent barricades installed
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: more permanent barricades installed
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

bridge built in the 1950s before bridge transferred to county secondary road system
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: This bridge was a concrete deck on wood piles built in the 1950s by the state. It was part of the secondary roadway system given to the counties many years ago.
from entity text: bridge built in the 1950s
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: bridge transferred to county secondary road system
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: bridge transferred to county secondary road system
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

bridge inspector telephone call before barricades erected
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In June 2000, Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating this bridge needed to be closed... Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour.
from entity text: bridge inspector telephone call
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: barricades erected
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: barricades erected
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

bridge transferred to county before bridge inspector telephone call in June 2000
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: It was part of the secondary roadway system given to the counties many years ago. In June 2000, Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector.
from entity text: bridge transferred to county
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: bridge inspector telephone call in June 2000
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: bridge inspector telephone call in June 2000
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

certificate of occupancy issued before Engineer A learns of the extension
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A certificate of occupancy is issued. Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse.
from entity text: certificate of occupancy issued
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A learns of the extension
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A learns of the extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067210+00:00
value: Given the non-imminent nature of the barn collapse risk, Engineer A was constrained to continue working collaboratively with Jones to pursue resolution of the safety concern alongside any regulatory escalation — the non-imminent risk permitted a graduated collaborative approach rather than immediate unilateral multi-authority escalation that bypassed the property owner.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066659+00:00
value: The fact that the town had issued a certificate of occupancy for Jones's barn extension after approving the structural modifications did not preclude or discharge Engineer A's independent duty to notify the issuing authority and Jones of the perceived structural deficiency — prohibiting Engineer A from treating the regulatory approval as a complete shield against the safety notification obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067660+00:00
value: The deadline-conditioned threat operationalizes the persistent escalation obligation in a procedurally structured way, giving the authority a fair opportunity to act before external escalation is triggered.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066517+00:00
value: The deadline-conditioned threat operationalizes the persistent escalation obligation in a procedurally structured way, giving the authority a fair opportunity to act before external escalation is triggered.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065406+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation overrode community pressure; County Commission ultimately supported the closure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067062+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation overrode community pressure; County Commission ultimately supported the closure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065923+00:00
value: Safety determination prevailed; County Commission declined to reopen the bridge.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066937+00:00
value: Engineer A was required to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the signed and sealed bridge inspection report to determine whether the two-crutch-pile with five-ton limit design solution would be structurally effective, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the supervisor.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066859+00:00
value: The Board held that Engineer A retained an obligation to challenge and escalate the non-engineer's decision rather than acquiesce to it.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.068019+00:00
value: Board held Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the unlicensed practice to the state board.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067607+00:00
value: Proportionality principle resolved the tension by prescribing a measured written notification rather than a full multi-authority campaign.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066294+00:00
value: Proportionality principle resolved the tension by prescribing a measured written notification rather than a full multi-authority campaign.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066034+00:00
value: The Board held that Engineer A retained an obligation to challenge and escalate the non-engineer's decision rather than acquiesce to it.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067904+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation overrode community pressure; County Commission ultimately supported the closure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067348+00:00
value: The dual duty overrode any deference to the public works director's decision; full escalation was required.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065543+00:00
value: Board held Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the unlicensed practice to the state board.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066992+00:00
value: Board held Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the unlicensed practice to the state board.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067114+00:00
value: If the town supervisor failed to take appropriate steps within a reasonable period after written notification, Engineer A was required to again contact the town supervisor in writing, indicate that if steps were not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials — prohibiting both premature escalation that bypasses the deadline-setting step and indefinite deferral after the deadline passes without adequate response.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066587+00:00
value: Owner-first notification is the ethically preferred sequence; municipal notification follows but is not a substitute for owner notification.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067407+00:00
value: The sale of the property four years prior does not extinguish Engineer A's professional responsibility to act on unique design knowledge when that knowledge reveals a material safety risk created by post-sale modifications; the obligation arises from the engineer's special epistemic position, not from any ongoing contractual duty.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066380+00:00
value: Engineer A's verbal-only notification to the town supervisor was insufficient to discharge the safety notification obligation — upon the supervisor's failure to take action, Engineer A was constrained to follow up with written documentation of the structural concern, creating a formal record and triggering the graduated escalation pathway.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067811+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation overrides any residual loyalty or confidentiality considerations given the potential for structural collapse endangering persons in or near the barn.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066729+00:00
value: Distinguishing analysis produced a calibrated obligation appropriate to the present case's facts rather than mechanical application of the bridge precedent.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067473+00:00
value: Role-differentiation principle resolved the tension by prescribing written notification to the town supervisor rather than a full multi-authority campaign.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.064974+00:00
value: Owner-first notification does not preclude concurrent or subsequent municipal notification; the two obligations are complementary, with owner notification as the ethically preferred first step and municipal notification as the required escalation pathway if the owner fails to act.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065823+00:00
value: Owner-first notification is the ethically preferred sequence; municipal notification follows but is not a substitute for owner notification.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065268+00:00
value: The post-sale safety notification obligation is triggered by the engineer's unique knowledge of the structural system; the absence of a contractual relationship does not extinguish the obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066220+00:00
value: The post-sale safety notification obligation is triggered by the engineer's unique knowledge of the structural system; the absence of a contractual relationship does not extinguish the obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067727+00:00
value: The post-sale safety notification obligation is triggered by the engineer's unique knowledge of the structural system; the absence of a contractual relationship does not extinguish the obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066799+00:00
value: Engineer A's direct design knowledge of the original structure provides sufficient professional grounding to overcome epistemic humility constraints; the concern is not speculative but grounded in specific structural engineering judgment about load-bearing element removal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065183+00:00
value: The deadline-conditioned threat operationalizes the persistent escalation obligation in a procedurally structured way, giving the authority a fair opportunity to act before external escalation is triggered.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.79
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067964+00:00
value: Written documentation is a prerequisite to the escalation sequence; without it, the engineer cannot credibly demonstrate prior notification or trigger the deadline-conditioned escalation step.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066438+00:00
value: Persistent escalation is required but calibrated to the measured scope appropriate to the present case's risk level and role relationship.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066093+00:00
value: The non-engineer authority limitation reinforces rather than conflicts with the persistent escalation obligation: because the town supervisor lacks engineering competence, Engineer A's escalation obligation is heightened, not satisfied, by the supervisor's non-response.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065093+00:00
value: Proportionality principle resolved the tension by prescribing a measured written notification rather than a full multi-authority campaign.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065740+00:00
value: Proportionality principle resolved the tension by prescribing a measured written notification rather than a full multi-authority campaign.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065348+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation overrides any residual loyalty or confidentiality considerations given the potential for structural collapse endangering persons in or near the barn.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067531+00:00
value: Owner-first notification does not preclude concurrent or subsequent municipal notification; the two obligations are complementary, with owner notification as the ethically preferred first step and municipal notification as the required escalation pathway if the owner fails to act.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065608+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation overrides any residual loyalty or confidentiality considerations given the potential for structural collapse endangering persons in or near the barn.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.79
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.065479+00:00
value: Written documentation is a prerequisite to the escalation sequence; without it, the engineer cannot credibly demonstrate prior notification or trigger the deadline-conditioned escalation step.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.066164+00:00
value: The written documentation requirement is not in tension with other principles here; it simply demands a higher standard of care than Engineer A exercised.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:30:08.067268+00:00
value: Engineer A was constrained to notify Jones, the current property owner, in writing about the perceived structural deficiency and collapse risk — verbal notification to the town supervisor alone was insufficient to discharge the safety notification obligation to the directly affected property owner.

detailed inspection report completed before authorization obtained for bridge replacement
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Within a few days, a detailed inspection report... indicated seven pilings required replacement. Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced.
from entity text: detailed inspection report completed
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: authorization obtained for bridge replacement
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: authorization obtained for bridge replacement
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

follow-up written contact to town supervisor before escalation to county or state building officials
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: 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 within a specific period of time... Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials.
from entity text: follow-up written contact to town supervisor
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: escalation to county or state building officials
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: escalation to county or state building officials
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

more permanent barricades installed before detailed inspection report completed
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: More permanent barricades and signs were installed. Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm... indicated seven pilings required replacement.
from entity text: more permanent barricades installed
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: detailed inspection report completed
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: detailed inspection report completed
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's concern that removing load-bearing columns and footings from a barn Engineer A originally designed creates a collapse risk under severe snow loads constitutes a good faith professional judgment sufficient to trigger the obligat

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional accountability as a licensed engineer did not terminate with the sale of the property; upon learning of modifications that in Engineer A's professional judgment created a structural collapse risk, Engineer A remain

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn, possessed unique knowledge of the structural load calculations and design intent that enabled a professional judgment that removing the columns and footings created a collapse risk under sev

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, who originally designed and built the barn, retained a professional obligation to notify the current owner and town supervisor when he learned that post-sale structural modifications (removal of load-bearing columns and footings

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon learning that Jones removed load-bearing columns and footings from the barn Engineer A originally designed, identified a potential structural collapse risk under severe snow loads and took steps to alert the town supervisor

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After verbally notifying the town supervisor of the structural collapse risk and receiving no action, Engineer A's professional obligation was not discharged; the principle requires continued escalation to supervisory officials, county auth

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that if the town supervisor fails to take adequate steps after Engineer A's written notification, Engineer A must not treat the unanswered initial report as a discharged obligation but must continue pursuing resolution — firs

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The risk of structural collapse under severe snow loads — a seasonal, potentially imminent hazard affecting persons in or near the barn — required Engineer A to calibrate escalation beyond a single verbal notification to a municipal supervi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation extended to directly notifying Jones (the current property owner) and any occupants or users of the barn about the potential structural collapse risk, particularly after the town supervisor failed to act, because the

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board systematically compared the present barn case with BER Case 00-5 bridge case, identifying three material distinguishing factors — imminence/breadth of risk, engineer's public employment role with specific responsibility, and the '

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A communicated the structural collapse concern to the town supervisor only verbally, without following up in writing, which left the safety concern without a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record — contributing to the town supe

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that Engineer A must make a written record of communications with the barn owner and town supervisor, and follow up the verbal communication to the town supervisor with a written confirmation restating the concern — creating

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that if the town supervisor fails to take adequate steps within a reasonable period after Engineer A's written notification, Engineer A must issue a further written communication to the town supervisor specifying a concrete d

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that Engineer A should have first notified the current barn owner of structural integrity concerns before or concurrent with notifying the town supervisor — the owner, as the party with primary legal responsibility for the pr

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A notified the town supervisor about the barn collapse risk without first notifying Jones (the current property owner), inverting the ethically preferred notification sequence; Jones, as the current owner and primary party responsi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that Engineer A in the present case, who encountered the barn risk as a private individual without assigned institutional responsibility for the structure, bore a more measured escalation obligation than Engineer A in BER 00-

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board distinguished the present barn case from BER 00-5 bridge case on grounds of imminence and breadth of risk: the barn risk, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as a potential bridge collapse, and the

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge, Engineer A bore a heightened obligation — compelled both as a professional engineer and as a public employee — to pursue full multi-authority escalation wh

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A maintained the bridge closure against a public rally and petition of approximately 200 signatures requesting reopening to limited traffic, refusing to subordinate professional safety judgment to community sentiment.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER Case 00-5 closed the bridge, installed barricades, obtained replacement authorization, and resisted public pressure and a petition of ~200 signatures to reopen it, because professional judgment determined the bridge posed

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: A retired bridge inspector without a professional engineering license was directed to perform a structural assessment of the compromised bridge and effectively authorized a structural remediation solution — conduct the Board identified as p

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired (unlicensed) bridge inspector to examine the bridge and authorized installation of two crutch piles and reopening with a five-ton limit — a structural engineering decision made without

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The town supervisor, a non-engineer municipal official, acknowledged Engineer A's verbal safety concern but took no action, illustrating the principle that non-engineer authorities lack the professional competence to evaluate structural eng

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional accountability as a licensed engineer did not terminate with the sale of the property; upon learning of modifications that in Engineer A's professional judgment created a structural collapse risk, Engineer A remain

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn, possessed unique knowledge of the structural load calculations and design intent that enabled a professional judgment that removing the columns and footings created a collapse risk under sev

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, who originally designed and built the barn, retained a professional obligation to notify the current owner and town supervisor when he learned that post-sale structural modifications (removal of load-bearing columns and footings

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon learning that Jones removed load-bearing columns and footings from the barn Engineer A originally designed, identified a potential structural collapse risk under severe snow loads and took steps to alert the town supervisor

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that Engineer A should have first notified the current barn owner of structural integrity concerns before or concurrent with notifying the town supervisor — the owner, as the party with primary legal responsibility for the pr

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A notified the town supervisor about the barn collapse risk without first notifying Jones (the current property owner), inverting the ethically preferred notification sequence; Jones, as the current owner and primary party responsi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A communicated the structural collapse concern to the town supervisor only verbally, without following up in writing, which left the safety concern without a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record — contributing to the town supe

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that Engineer A must make a written record of communications with the barn owner and town supervisor, and follow up the verbal communication to the town supervisor with a written confirmation restating the concern — creating

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A communicated the structural collapse concern to the town supervisor only verbally, without following up in writing, which left the safety concern without a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record — contributing to the town supe

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that if the town supervisor fails to take adequate steps within a reasonable period after Engineer A's written notification, Engineer A must issue a further written communication to the town supervisor specifying a concrete d

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that if the town supervisor fails to take adequate steps within a reasonable period after Engineer A's written notification, Engineer A must issue a further written communication to the town supervisor specifying a concrete d

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After verbally notifying the town supervisor of the structural collapse risk and receiving no action, Engineer A's professional obligation was not discharged; the principle requires continued escalation to supervisory officials, county auth

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that if the town supervisor fails to take adequate steps after Engineer A's written notification, Engineer A must not treat the unanswered initial report as a discharged obligation but must continue pursuing resolution — firs

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The risk of structural collapse under severe snow loads — a seasonal, potentially imminent hazard affecting persons in or near the barn — required Engineer A to calibrate escalation beyond a single verbal notification to a municipal supervi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board distinguished the present barn case from BER 00-5 bridge case on grounds of imminence and breadth of risk: the barn risk, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as a potential bridge collapse, and the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board held that Engineer A in the present case, who encountered the barn risk as a private individual without assigned institutional responsibility for the structure, bore a more measured escalation obligation than Engineer A in BER 00-

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation extended to directly notifying Jones (the current property owner) and any occupants or users of the barn about the potential structural collapse risk, particularly after the town supervisor failed to act, because the

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain the bridge closure determination against the public rally and petition of approximately 200 signatures requesting reopening to limited traffic, and to explain the technical basis for the closure to the C

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER Case 00-5 closed the bridge, installed barricades, obtained replacement authorization, and resisted public pressure and a petition of ~200 signatures to reopen it, because professional judgment determined the bridge posed

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge, Engineer A bore a heightened obligation — compelled both as a professional engineer and as a public employee — to pursue full multi-authority escalation wh

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge, Engineer A bore a heightened obligation — compelled both as a professional engineer and as a public employee — to pursue full multi-authority escalation wh

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: A retired bridge inspector without a professional engineering license was directed to perform a structural assessment of the compromised bridge and effectively authorized a structural remediation solution — conduct the Board identified as p

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board systematically compared the present barn case with BER Case 00-5 bridge case, identifying three material distinguishing factors — imminence/breadth of risk, engineer's public employment role with specific responsibility, and the '

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, who originally designed and built the barn, retained a professional obligation to notify the current owner and town supervisor when he learned that post-sale structural modifications (removal of load-bearing columns and footings

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's concern that removing load-bearing columns and footings from a barn Engineer A originally designed creates a collapse risk under severe snow loads constitutes a good faith professional judgment sufficient to trigger the obligat

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon learning that Jones removed load-bearing columns and footings from the barn Engineer A originally designed, identified a potential structural collapse risk under severe snow loads and took steps to alert the town supervisor

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's professional obligation to act on the structural safety concern was not extinguished by the absence of any current client relationship with Jones or the property; Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative safety action — not

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn with unique knowledge of its structural load calculations and design intent, was obligated upon learning of Jones's structural modifications to notify Jones (the current owner) and relevant p

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the scope and intensity of escalation to the limited, non-imminent nature of the barn collapse risk — distinguishing it from the imminent, widespread bridge collapse risk in BER 00-5 — and to pursue a p

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to notify Jones, the current property owner, of the structural collapse concern before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, so that Jones had the opportunity to take voluntary protective action as t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to notify Jones, the current property owner, in writing about the perceived structural deficiency and collapse risk, so that Jones had a documented record of the risk and could take informed protective action.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to provide Jones with specific, actionable remedial guidance — such as recommending temporary bracing, load reduction, or structural reinforcement — rather than merely reporting the concern to the town supervisor, s

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to notify the town authority that issued the certificate of occupancy for Jones's barn extension of the structural safety concern, since that authority approved the modifications and bears regulatory responsibility

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After the town supervisor failed to take action within a reasonable period following Engineer A's verbal notification, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the matter to county or state building officials, converting the conditional escalat

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to maintain the bridge closure determination against the public rally and petition of approximately 200 signatures requesting reopening to limited traffic, and to explain the technical basis for the closure to the C

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the signed and sealed bridge inspection report to determine whether the two-crutch-pile with five-ton-limit design solution was structurally adequate

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to immediately press the supervising authority for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit after observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of the restriction, and if that escalation w

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to resist the non-engineer public works director's override of the bridge closure by escalating immediately to the supervisor, and then to the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transp

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by taking all reasonable steps to address the structural collapse risk in the barn, including notifying the current owner, relevant authorities, and fo

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge, was obligated to fulfill a heightened safety duty compelled both by professional engineering ethics and by public employee status, requiring im

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to determine whether the activities of the retired bridge inspector — who was not a licensed engineer and was directed by the non-engineer public works director to examine the bridge and whose assessment was used to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The Board was obligated to systematically compare the present barn case against BER 00-5 bridge case, identifying material distinguishing factors (imminence, breadth of risk, institutional role) to determine the appropriate escalation scope

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to first notify Jones (the current barn owner) of structural integrity concerns regarding the barn before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, giving the owner the opportunity to act voluntarily bef

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to follow up the verbal communication to the town supervisor with a written confirmation restating the structural collapse concern, make a written record of all communications with both Jones and the town supervisor

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, if the town supervisor failed to take adequate steps within a reasonable period after written notification, to again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps were not taken within a specifi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn, was obligated to notify the current owner (Jones) and the town supervisor when he learned that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings, because Engineer A's unique knowledge of t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After the town supervisor failed to take action following Engineer A's verbal notification of the structural collapse risk, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the matter to higher or alternative authorities — such as the county building o

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the response to the barn collapse risk proportionately — notifying Jones, contacting the building authority, providing actionable remedial guidance, and following up in writing — without either suppress

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After verbally notifying the town supervisor of the structural collapse risk and receiving no action, Engineer A was obligated to follow up with written confirmation of the concern, document all communications, monitor the situation, and se

state and federal department reviews before funds available for bridge replacement
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Several departments in the state and federal transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks before the funds could be used.
from entity text: state and federal department reviews
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: funds available for bridge replacement
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: funds available for bridge replacement
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

town approval of changes before certificate of occupancy issued
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
from entity text: town approval of changes
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: certificate of occupancy issued
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: certificate of occupancy issued
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.578739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

verbal communication with town supervisor before written confirmation to town supervisor
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A should make 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.
from entity text: verbal communication with town supervisor
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: written confirmation to town supervisor
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: written confirmation to town supervisor
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

written confirmation to town supervisor before follow-up written contact if no action taken
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor... If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing.
from entity text: written confirmation to town supervisor
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: follow-up written contact if no action taken
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: follow-up written contact if no action taken
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.579176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Safety Escalation — Engineer A Present Case Barn Extension
type: CertificateofOccupancyNon-PreclusionofEngineerSafetyDutyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The town had reviewed and approved Jones's structural modifications and issued a certificate of occupancy for the barn extension, yet Engineer A assessed the modified structure as at risk of collapse under severe snow loads.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Present Case)
constraintclass: Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Duty Constraint
constraintstatement: The fact that the town had issued a certificate of occupancy for Jones's barn extension after approving the structural modifications did not preclude or discharge Engineer A's independent duty to notify the issuing authority and Jones of the perceived structural deficiency — prohibiting Engineer A from treating the regulatory approval as a complete shield against the safety notification obligation.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A notified the town supervisor (the individual who issued the certificate of occupancy for the barn extension) of his concern
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A identified the structural concern despite the existing certificate of occupancy
textreferences: Engineer A notified the town supervisor (the individual who issued the certificate of occupancy for the barn extension) of his concern
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.576207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Collaborative Crutch Pile Adequacy Verification — Engineer A BER 00-5 Consulting Firm
type: CollaborativeConsultingFirmStructuralAdequacyVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector examine the bridge and authorized installation of two crutch piles with a five-ton limit. The consulting engineering firm had previously prepared a signed and sealed report identifying seven pilings requiring replacement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
constraintclass: Collaborative Consulting Firm Structural Adequacy Verification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the signed and sealed bridge inspection report to determine whether the two-crutch-pile with five-ton limit design solution would be structurally effective, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the supervisor.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also 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.
temporalscope: After the crutch pile installation decision was made and before or concurrent with escalation to supervisory authorities
textreferences: Engineer A should have also 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.574266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation — Engineer A to County-State Building Officials After Town Supervisor Non-Response
type: GraduatedDeadline-ConditionedEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The town supervisor failed to take action following Engineer A's verbal notification. The Board prescribed a graduated written escalation pathway with a specific deadline before escalating to county or state building officials.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Present Case)
constraintclass: Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: If the town supervisor failed to take appropriate steps within a reasonable period after written notification, Engineer A was required to again contact the town supervisor in writing, indicate that if steps were not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials — prohibiting both premature escalation that bypasses the deadline-setting step and indefinite deferral after the deadline passes without adequate response.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:40:13.743048+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
temporalscope: After written notification to the town supervisor and expiration of a reasonable response period
textreferences: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.575721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Non-Engineer Public Works Director Bridge Remediation Decision Maker
type: Non-EngineerInfrastructureDecisionMaker
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation BER 00-5 Public Works Director
attributes: {'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'title': 'Public Works Director'}
caseinvolvement: A non-engineer public works director who directed a retired (unlicensed) bridge inspector to examine the compromised bridge and then authorized installation of two crutch piles and reopening with a five-ton limit, constituting unlicensed engineering decision-making that created public safety risks and triggered reporting obligations for Engineer A.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'directs', 'target': 'Retired Bridge Inspector (Unlicensed)'}
relationships: {'type': 'overrides', 'target': 'Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Maker
sourcetext: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.554799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Non-Imminent Structural Risk Collaborative Continuation — Engineer A and Jones
type: Non-ImminentStructuralRiskClientCollaborationContinuationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The barn collapse risk was non-imminent and localized. Engineer A's obligation included working with Jones to address the structural concern, not merely escalating to governmental authorities while bypassing the property owner who had the most direct interest in and ability to remedy the deficiency.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Imminent Structural Risk Client Collaboration Continuation Constraint
constraintstatement: Given the non-imminent nature of the barn collapse risk, Engineer A was constrained to continue working collaboratively with Jones to pursue resolution of the safety concern alongside any regulatory escalation — the non-imminent risk permitted a graduated collaborative approach rather than immediate unilateral multi-authority escalation that bypassed the property owner.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's response to the structural safety concern
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.567238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
type: MunicipalSafetyInactionAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation — Town Supervisor Inaction
attributes: {'license': 'None (non-engineer municipal official)', 'authority': 'Municipal supervisory authority', 'action_taken': 'Agreed to look into the matter; no follow-up action taken'}
caseinvolvement: Received verbal notification from Engineer A about the potential structural collapse risk; acknowledged the concern and agreed to investigate but took no corrective action.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:01.783764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:01.783764+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'oversees', 'target': 'Town building approval process'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.559135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Verbal-Only Notification Insufficiency — Engineer A Must Follow Up Town Supervisor Verbally With Written Report
type: Verbal-OnlySafetyNotificationWrittenFollow-UpConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to look into the matter but took no action. Engineer A's obligation was not discharged by the verbal notification alone — a written follow-up was required to create a record and to trigger the deadline-conditioned escalation pathway.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's verbal-only notification to the town supervisor was insufficient to discharge the safety notification obligation — upon the supervisor's failure to take action, Engineer A was constrained to follow up with written documentation of the structural concern, creating a formal record and triggering the graduated escalation pathway.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
temporalscope: After the town supervisor acknowledged the concern verbally but took no action
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.566478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Written Safety Notification — Engineer A Must Notify Jones in Writing
type: WrittenSafetyNotificationThird-PartyOwnerConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted only the town supervisor, with no indication that Jones received any written or verbal notification of the structural safety concern. The property owner had a direct interest in and right to receive written notification of the perceived deficiency.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Written Safety Notification Third-Party Owner Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to notify Jones, the current property owner, in writing about the perceived structural deficiency and collapse risk — verbal notification to the town supervisor alone was insufficient to discharge the safety notification obligation to the directly affected property owner.
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:32:42.347285+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
temporalscope: Upon forming a concern about the structural collapse risk and prior to or alongside governmental escalation
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.566312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER 00-5 Bridge Public Pressure Override
type: PublicPressureOverridingEngineeringSafetyClosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the rally and petition presentation through the County Commission's decision not to reopen (Commission ultimately upheld closure, but public pressure was applied)
affectedparties: Bridge users
affectedparties: County Commission
affectedparties: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
affectedparties: Local residents
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Public Pressure Overriding Engineering Safety Closure State
subject: County Commission decision to reopen bridge despite engineering safety closure, following petition with ~200 signatures and community rally
terminatedby: County Commission decision not to reopen the bridge
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge
triggeringevent: Rally held and petition with approximately 200 signatures presented to County Commission requesting bridge reopening
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.555561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER 00-5 Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation
type: Multi-AuthorityEscalationObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A observed overweight traffic crossing the bridge through the period requiring escalation
affectedparties: Bridge users
affectedparties: County prosecutors
affectedparties: County supervisor
affectedparties: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
affectedparties: State engineering licensure board
affectedparties: State/federal transportation officials
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
stateclass: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's (BER 00-5) obligation to contact multiple authorities simultaneously given imminent bridge collapse risk and non-engineer override of engineering safety closure
terminatedby: Not terminated within case facts — escalation obligation remained active
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
textreferences: contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
triggeringevent: Bridge reopened with five-ton limit but log trucks and tankers crossing regularly; significant bridge movement observed
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.556087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Public Works Director Reopening Decision
type: Non-EngineerAuthorityDirectingPost-ClosureReopeningState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From public works director's decision through bridge reopening with five-ton limit and observed overweight traffic violations
affectedparties: Bridge users
affectedparties: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
affectedparties: Log truck and tanker operators
affectedparties: Non-engineer public works director
affectedparties: Retired bridge inspector
affectedparties: School bus passengers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
stateclass: Non-Engineer Authority Directing Post-Closure Reopening State
subject: Non-engineer public works director directing retired (unlicensed) bridge inspector to evaluate bridge and authorizing crutch pile installation and reopening with five-ton limit
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts — bridge remained open with overweight traffic observed
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: No follow-up inspection was undertaken
textreferences: a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
triggeringevent: Non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) examine the bridge
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.555732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Certificate of Occupancy Issued for Structurally Compromised Barn Extension
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuedDespiteStructuralDeficiencyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of the certificate of occupancy through resolution of the structural safety concern
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Town building authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
stateclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency State
subject: Town's official approval of the barn extension despite removal of load-bearing structural elements
terminatedby: Regulatory re-evaluation, structural remediation, or revocation of the certificate of occupancy
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
triggeringevent: Town issues certificate of occupancy for the barn extension after Jones removes columns and footings
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.558828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Sale Continuing Safety Obligation
type: Post-SaleOriginalDesignerContinuingSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A learns of Jones's structural modifications through resolution of the safety concern
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Occupants of the barn
affectedparties: Town authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
stateclass: Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's ethical relationship to the barn structure after property sale to Jones
terminatedby: Successful notification of Jones and/or regulatory authorities, or remediation of the structural risk
textreferences: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
triggeringevent: Engineer A learns that Jones has removed load-bearing columns and footings as part of a barn extension
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.558674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk — Snow Load on Modified Barn
type: Non-ImminentStructuralCollapseRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's assessment through structural remediation or demolition
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Town authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
stateclass: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
subject: The modified barn structure's assessed vulnerability to collapse under severe snow loads
terminatedby: Structural reinforcement, demolition, or independent engineering clearance
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional assessment that removal of columns and footings creates collapse risk under foreseeable snow loads
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.555248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Owner-Modified Approved Structure Structural Integrity Concern — Barn Extension
type: Owner-ModifiedApprovedStructureStructuralIntegrityConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of the barn extension through structural remediation
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Town authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
stateclass: Owner-Modified Approved Structure Structural Integrity Concern State
subject: The barn's structural integrity following Jones's removal of load-bearing columns and footings under town approval
terminatedby: Structural remediation or independent engineering assessment confirming safety
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
triggeringevent: Jones removes columns and footings supporting the roof as part of the approved barn extension
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.559615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Collapse Risk — Barn
type: Post-Certificate-of-OccupancyStructuralSafetyConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's discovery of the modifications through remediation or regulatory action
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Town authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
stateclass: Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern State
subject: Engineer A's assessment that the modified barn is at risk of collapse under severe snow loads, despite official CO issuance
terminatedby: Structural remediation, independent engineering confirmation of safety, or regulatory intervention
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
triggeringevent: Engineer A learns of the removal of columns and footings and assesses collapse risk under snow loads
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.559002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Present Case Comparative Precedent Distinguishing
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the Board's ethical analysis of the present case
affectedparties: Barn owner
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
stateclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing State
subject: The Board's determination that BER Case 00-5 (bridge collapse) is materially distinguishable from the present barn case on grounds of danger imminence, breadth of affected population, and Engineer A's specific role and authority — resulting in a calibrated, less extensive but still meaningful obligation
terminatedby: Board's determination of the appropriate calibrated obligation for the present case
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: in BER Case No. 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question
textreferences: the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials
triggeringevent: Board's identification of BER Case 00-5 as a potentially applicable precedent followed by recognition of material factual differences
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.562863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Present Case Graduated Escalation Obligation
type: GraduatedEscalationObligationCalibratedtoDangerSeverityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the structural concern through the period of monitoring and potential escalation
affectedparties: Barn owner
affectedparties: County/state building officials
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
stateclass: Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to calibrate escalation response to the non-imminent, limited-scope structural risk of the barn — requiring written notification to owner and town supervisor, monitoring, and time-bounded ultimatum before escalating to county/state building officials
terminatedby: Either adequate corrective action by owner/town supervisor, or Engineer A's escalation to county/state building officials
textreferences: Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
textreferences: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
triggeringevent: Engineer A's assessment of barn structural integrity concern combined with town supervisor's verbal acknowledgment without follow-through
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.556557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Present Case Non-Imminent Barn Structural Risk
type: Non-ImminentStructuralCollapseRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's assessment of the barn's structural integrity through the period of the Board's analysis
affectedparties: Barn owner
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Potential occupants or users of barn
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
stateclass: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
subject: Barn with owner-modified structural elements assessed by Engineer A as posing collapse risk under foreseeable loads, but not imminently dangerous in the manner of the BER 00-5 bridge
terminatedby: Not terminated within case facts — risk remains unaddressed pending adequate response
textreferences: the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
triggeringevent: Engineer A's assessment of structural integrity concerns in the barn following owner modifications
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.556241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Present Case Owner-First Notification Priority
type: Owner-FirstNotificationPriorityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the structural concern through direct notification of the owner
affectedparties: Barn owner
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
stateclass: Owner-First Notification Priority State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to notify the barn owner directly of structural integrity concerns before or alongside notifying the town supervisor, given the non-imminent nature of the risk and the owner's primary responsibility for the property
terminatedby: Engineer A directly notifying the barn owner of the structural concern
textreferences: Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
textreferences: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
triggeringevent: Engineer A identifying structural integrity concerns in the barn on privately owned property
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.562528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Present Case Written Escalation Ultimatum Obligation
type: WrittenEscalationUltimatumState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which a reasonable period has elapsed without adequate action by the town supervisor, through either corrective action or escalation to building officials
affectedparties: Barn owner
affectedparties: County/state building officials
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate
stateclass: Written Escalation Ultimatum State
subject: Engineer A's obligation, if the town supervisor fails to act within a reasonable period after initial written notification, to issue a formal written ultimatum specifying a deadline and identifying county/state building officials as the next escalation target
terminatedby: Either town supervisor takes adequate action, or Engineer A escalates to county/state building officials
textreferences: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate
triggeringevent: Reasonable period elapsed after Engineer A's initial written notification to town supervisor without adequate corrective action
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.562695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk — Barn Structural Collapse Under Snow Load
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's assessment of collapse risk through structural remediation or demolition
affectedparties: Adjacent property owners
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: The risk to occupants and the public posed by the potentially structurally compromised barn
terminatedby: Structural remediation, demolition, or independent engineering clearance
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional assessment that removal of load-bearing elements creates collapse risk under severe snow loads
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.560558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Regulatory Non-Response to Engineer A's Safety Notification — Town Supervisor
type: RegulatoryNon-ResponsetoSafetyNotificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which the town supervisor fails to follow through, persisting until regulatory action or Engineer A's escalation
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
stateclass: Regulatory Non-Response to Safety Notification State
subject: The town's failure to act on Engineer A's verbal safety notification regarding the barn's structural risk
terminatedby: Regulatory action by town or other authority, or Engineer A's escalation to additional authorities
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
triggeringevent: Town supervisor agrees to investigate but takes no action
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.559919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Town Supervisor Verbal Acknowledgment Without Follow-Through — Barn Safety
type: TownSupervisorVerbalAcknowledgmentWithoutFollow-ThroughState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's verbal contact with the town supervisor through either regulatory action or Engineer A's escalation to additional authorities
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
stateclass: Town Supervisor Verbal Acknowledgment Without Follow-Through State
subject: Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor and the supervisor's failure to act
terminatedby: Town supervisor takes concrete action, Engineer A escalates to building department or state authority, or safety risk is otherwise resolved
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
triggeringevent: Town supervisor verbally agrees to look into the structural safety concern but takes no action
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.559771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Verbal-Only Safety Advisory to Town Supervisor — No Written Record
type: Verbal-OnlySafetyAdvisoryWithoutWrittenRecordState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's verbal contact through either written documentation or resolution of the safety concern
affectedparties: Barn occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:32.582169+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
stateclass: Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record State
subject: Engineer A's verbal-only communication of the structural safety concern to the town supervisor, without a written engineering report or formal notification
terminatedby: Engineer A produces a written safety notification, or the matter is resolved through other means
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
triggeringevent: Engineer A chooses to contact the town supervisor verbally rather than through a formal written notification
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.560065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Actionable Remedial Guidance — Engineer A to Jones Regarding Barn Structural Risk
type: ActionableRemedialGuidancetoPropertyOwnerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk — Snow Load on Modified Barn
casecontext: Engineer A identified a potential collapse risk but directed the concern only to the town supervisor verbally, without providing Jones with any actionable guidance on how to mitigate the risk.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Actionable Remedial Guidance to Property Owner Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to provide Jones with specific, actionable remedial guidance — such as recommending temporary bracing, load reduction, or structural reinforcement — rather than merely reporting the concern to the town supervisor, so that Jones had the information necessary to take protective action before a collapse occurred.
sourcetext: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A forming the concern about structural collapse risk due to the modifications
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.565273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification — Engineer A to Town Building Authority
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuingAuthorityStructuralModificationSafetyRe-NotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Certificate of Occupancy Issued for Structurally Compromised Barn Extension
casecontext: The town reviewed and approved Jones's barn extension plans and issued a certificate of occupancy despite the structural modifications involving removal of load-bearing columns and footings. Engineer A contacted only the town supervisor, not the building/certificate of occupancy authority.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Structural Modification Safety Re-Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify the town authority that issued the certificate of occupancy for Jones's barn extension of the structural safety concern, since that authority approved the modifications and bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use.
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications and the certificate of occupancy issuance
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.565133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Comparative Case Precedent Risk-Calibrated Escalation Scope
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentRisk-CalibratedEscalationScopeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board compared the present barn case with BER 00-5 on three factors: imminence/breadth of danger, institutional role of the engineer, and circumstances dictating escalation scope, concluding that a more limited multi-step response was appropriate for the barn case.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation BER 00-5 vs Present Case
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (applying precedent to present case)
obligationclass: Comparative Case Precedent Risk-Calibrated Escalation Scope Obligation
obligationstatement: The Board was obligated to systematically compare the present barn case against BER 00-5 bridge case, identifying material distinguishing factors (imminence, breadth of risk, institutional role) to determine the appropriate escalation scope for Engineer A in the present case, and to calibrate the required response accordingly.
sourcetext: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
temporalscope: During ethical review of the present case
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: in BER Case No. 00-5, 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.573962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification
type: CrutchPileAdequacyCollaborativeVerificationandReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Structural Evaluation
casecontext: BER Case No. 00-5: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired (unlicensed) bridge inspector to examine the bridge and authorized installation of two crutch piles with a five-ton limit reopening, without follow-up inspection. A consulting engineering firm had previously prepared a signed and sealed inspection report identifying seven pilings requiring replacement.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case No. 00-5, local government engineer)
obligationclass: Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification and Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the signed and sealed bridge inspection report to determine whether the two-crutch-pile with five-ton-limit design solution was structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the supervisor.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also 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.
temporalscope: After crutch pile installation and bridge reopening, upon observation of ongoing safety concerns
textreferences: Engineer A should have also 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.572356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation — Town Supervisor Inaction
type: Non-EngineerSafetyDecisionAuthorityLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural collapse risk
appliedto: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
balancingwith: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The town supervisor, a non-engineer municipal official, acknowledged Engineer A's verbal safety concern but took no action, illustrating the principle that non-engineer authorities lack the professional competence to evaluate structural engineering safety concerns and that their failure to act does not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation to pursue resolution through competent engineering channels.
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The town supervisor's agreement to 'look into the matter' followed by inaction reflects the limitations of non-engineer authority in evaluating structural safety; Engineer A should not have treated the supervisor's acknowledgment as a sufficient response and should have escalated to parties with engineering competence.
invokedby: Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
principleclass: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
tensionresolution: The non-engineer authority limitation reinforces rather than conflicts with the persistent escalation obligation: because the town supervisor lacks engineering competence, Engineer A's escalation obligation is heightened, not satisfied, by the supervisor's non-response.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.563721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Structural Evaluation
type: UnlicensedInspectorPerformingEngineeringEvaluationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From public works director's directive through the retired inspector's evaluation and resulting reopening authorization
affectedparties: Bridge users
affectedparties: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
affectedparties: Public works director
affectedparties: Retired bridge inspector
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:27:23.418687+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
stateclass: Unlicensed Inspector Performing Engineering Evaluation State
subject: Retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) performing structural evaluation of condemned bridge and providing findings used to authorize reopening
terminatedby: Not formally terminated — the evaluation's findings were acted upon without engineering review
textreferences: In addition, 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
textreferences: a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
triggeringevent: Non-engineer public works director directed retired bridge inspector to examine the bridge
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.555914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation
type: Deadline-ConditionedCounty-StateBuildingOfficialEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Present Case Written Escalation Ultimatum Obligation
casecontext: Present case: After written notification to the town supervisor, if no adequate corrective action was taken within a reasonable period, Engineer A was required to set a specific deadline and threaten escalation to county or state building officials.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation Present Case Barn
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case, private engineer, original barn designer)
obligationclass: Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, if the town supervisor failed to take adequate steps within a reasonable period after written notification, to again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps were not taken within a specific period of time, Engineer A would bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials.
sourcetext: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
temporalscope: Conditional on town supervisor's failure to act within a reasonable period after written notification
textreferences: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.573351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor
type: NewOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Present Case Owner-First Notification Priority
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A verbally notified the town supervisor of the barn collapse risk without first notifying Jones (the current property owner who had removed load-bearing columns and footings). The Board held this sequencing was ethically improper.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing Present Case Barn
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case, private engineer, original barn designer)
obligationclass: New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to first notify Jones (the current barn owner) of structural integrity concerns regarding the barn before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, giving the owner the opportunity to act voluntarily before public officials were engaged.
sourcetext: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
temporalscope: Upon identifying the structural safety concern, before or concurrent with notifying the town supervisor
textreferences: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.572959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold — Engineer A Structural Collapse Concern
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernThresholdforExternalReporting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural modification by Jones
appliedto: Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
balancingwith: Epistemic Humility Constraint on Escalation Urgency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's concern that removing load-bearing columns and footings from a barn Engineer A originally designed creates a collapse risk under severe snow loads constitutes a good faith professional judgment sufficient to trigger the obligation to bring the concern to appropriate governmental authorities, even without a confirmed incident or formal structural inspection of the modified structure.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer A's professional judgment as the original designer — that removing structural load-bearing elements creates a snow-load collapse risk — satisfies the good faith threshold for external reporting without requiring Engineer A to have personally inspected the modified structure or to have confirmed an actual failure.
invokedby: Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
tensionresolution: The good faith threshold is met by Engineer A's original design knowledge; epistemic humility counsels care in characterizing certainty but does not negate the obligation to report a genuine professional concern.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.564219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation BER 00-5 Public Works Director
type: Non-EngineerSafetyDecisionAuthorityLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Bridge crutch pile installation decision
appliedto: Bridge reopening with five-ton limit authorization
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired (unlicensed) bridge inspector to examine the bridge and authorized installation of two crutch piles and reopening with a five-ton limit — a structural engineering decision made without licensed engineering authority.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Non-engineer managers lack professional authority to make final determinations on structural safety matters; their decisions do not discharge the licensed engineer's professional obligation to ensure safety.
invokedby: Non-Engineer Public Works Director Bridge Remediation Decision Maker
principleclass: Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Principle
sourcetext: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
tensionresolution: The Board held that Engineer A retained an obligation to challenge and escalate the non-engineer's decision rather than acquiesce to it.
textreferences: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.570107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Persistent Escalation Obligation — Engineer A Inaction After Town Supervisor Non-Response
type: PersistentEscalationObligationWhenInitialSafetyReportIsUnacknowledged
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Commission Bridge Safety Decision Authority (by analogy to escalation pathway)
appliedto: Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
balancingwith: Epistemic Humility Constraint on Escalation Urgency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After verbally notifying the town supervisor of the structural collapse risk and receiving no action, Engineer A's professional obligation was not discharged; the principle requires continued escalation to supervisory officials, county authorities, or other parties with jurisdiction rather than treating the unanswered verbal report as a completed duty.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The town supervisor's acknowledgment followed by inaction triggers Engineer A's obligation to escalate further — potentially to the county commission, state building authority, or directly to the property owner — rather than accepting the supervisor's non-response as a resolution.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's original design knowledge provides sufficient epistemic grounding to justify persistent escalation despite not having directly inspected the modified structure; the risk of collapse under snow loads is a professional judgment that warrants continued pursuit.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.561020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Professional Accountability — Engineer A Obligation to Act Despite No Current Client Relationship
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural collapse risk
appliedto: Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's professional accountability as a licensed engineer did not terminate with the sale of the property; upon learning of modifications that in Engineer A's professional judgment created a structural collapse risk, Engineer A remained accountable for taking adequate steps to address that risk, including written notification and escalation beyond a single verbal contact.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability here means that Engineer A cannot discharge the obligation by making a single verbal contact and accepting inaction; accountability requires persistent, documented, and escalating action proportional to the identified risk.
invokedby: Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property. Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
tensionresolution: No significant conflict: Engineer A has no current client relationship creating loyalty or confidentiality obligations that would constrain the accountability obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.564380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Proportional Escalation Obligation — Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
type: ProportionalEscalationObligationCalibratedtoImminenceandBreadthofRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural collapse risk under severe snow loads
appliedto: Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier
appliedto: Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Epistemic Humility Constraint on Escalation Urgency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The risk of structural collapse under severe snow loads — a seasonal, potentially imminent hazard affecting persons in or near the barn — required Engineer A to calibrate escalation beyond a single verbal notification to a municipal supervisor; the imminence of snow-season risk and the severity of potential collapse warranted a multi-channel escalation including written notification, direct owner contact, and potentially county-level authority engagement.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A potential structural collapse under foreseeable seasonal loads is a sufficiently imminent and severe risk to require escalation beyond a single verbal municipal notification; proportionality demands a more comprehensive response than Engineer A undertook.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's original design knowledge provides sufficient epistemic grounding to justify proportionally escalated response; the seasonal imminence of snow loads makes the risk time-sensitive and heightens the proportionality requirement.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.563897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification — Jones and Current Barn Occupants
type: Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Current Barn Owner Structural Safety Notification Recipient
appliedto: Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier
balancingwith: Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation extended to directly notifying Jones (the current property owner) and any occupants or users of the barn about the potential structural collapse risk, particularly after the town supervisor failed to act, because these parties are directly exposed to the hazard and may not otherwise receive timely warning through the regulatory channel Engineer A pursued.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When municipal authority notification fails to produce action, the engineer must pivot to direct notification of the affected property owner and occupants as the parties most immediately at risk and most capable of taking protective action.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
tensionresolution: Direct notification to Jones and current occupants is not in conflict with prior municipal notification; it is the required next step when the municipal channel is exhausted without result.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.557468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Written Third-Party Safety Notification — Engineer A to Jones
type: WrittenThird-PartySafetyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Collapse Risk — Barn
casecontext: Engineer A did not notify Jones in writing or at all; the only notification was a verbal contact with the town supervisor. Jones, as the current owner and the party most immediately affected, was entitled to direct written notification.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification — Jones and Current Barn Occupants
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Written Third-Party Safety Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify Jones, the current property owner, in writing about the perceived structural deficiency and collapse risk, so that Jones had a documented record of the risk and could take informed protective action.
sourcetext: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications and forming a concern about collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.565410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation BER 00-5 vs Present Case
type: ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Application of BER 00-5 precedent
appliedto: Ethical obligation determination in present barn case
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board systematically compared the present barn case with BER Case 00-5 bridge case, identifying three material distinguishing factors — imminence/breadth of risk, engineer's public employment role with specific responsibility, and the 'full-bore' campaign requirement — and used those distinctions to calibrate a different (more measured) ethical obligation for the present case.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Prior precedents do not automatically apply; the ethical reasoning must identify material factual differences and explain how those differences alter the applicable obligations.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
sourcetext: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
tensionresolution: Distinguishing analysis produced a calibrated obligation appropriate to the present case's facts rather than mechanical application of the bridge precedent.
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: in BER Case No. 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question
textreferences: in BER Case No. 00-5, the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.570875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Supervisor Escalation
type: Five-TonLimitStrictEnforcementSupervisorEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Public Works Director Reopening Decision
casecontext: BER Case No. 00-5: After crutch piles were installed and the bridge reopened with a five-ton limit, Engineer A observed significant bridge movement and regular crossings by log trucks and tankers in violation of the limit, while school buses went around.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case No. 00-5, local government engineer)
obligationclass: Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to immediately press the supervising authority for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit after observing log trucks and tankers crossing the bridge in violation of the restriction, and if that escalation was ineffective, to escalate further to state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities.
sourcetext: Engineer A observed that traffic is flowing and the significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
temporalscope: Upon observation of weight limit violations
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic is flowing and the significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
textreferences: the Board decided that Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press 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 such other authorities as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.572160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Persistent Escalation Obligation Present Case Barn Municipal Inaction
type: PersistentEscalationObligationWhenInitialSafetyReportIsUnacknowledged
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
appliedto: Town Supervisor Written Safety Notification Recipient
balancingwith: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation
balancingwith: Epistemic Humility Constraint on Escalation Urgency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board held that if the town supervisor fails to take adequate steps after Engineer A's written notification, Engineer A must not treat the unanswered initial report as a discharged obligation but must continue pursuing resolution — first through a deadline-conditioned second written notification, and ultimately through escalation to county or state building officials.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Municipal inaction does not discharge the engineer's safety obligation; the engineer must continue escalating through available channels until adequate action is taken.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
sourcetext: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
tensionresolution: Persistent escalation is required but calibrated to the measured scope appropriate to the present case's risk level and role relationship.
textreferences: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.571854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations Invoked BER 00-5 Bridge
type: ResistancetoPublicPressureonSafetyDeterminations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County Commission bridge reopening petition
appliedto: Public rally for bridge reopening
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A maintained the bridge closure against a public rally and petition of approximately 200 signatures requesting reopening to limited traffic, refusing to subordinate professional safety judgment to community sentiment.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional safety determinations are not subject to democratic override through petitions or rallies; the engineer's duty is to the public's actual safety, not to public preference.
invokedby: Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)
principleclass: Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
sourcetext: 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. Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
tensionresolution: Safety determination prevailed; County Commission declined to reopen the bridge.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge.
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.569952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope Present Case vs BER 00-5
type: Role-DifferentiatedSafetyEscalationScopePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural safety escalation scope determination
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board held that Engineer A in the present case, who encountered the barn risk as a private individual without assigned institutional responsibility for the structure, bore a more measured escalation obligation than Engineer A in BER 00-5, who had specific public employment responsibility for the bridge — even though both cases involved genuine safety concerns.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Role relationship to the hazard is an independent variable in determining escalation scope; the absence of assigned institutional responsibility does not eliminate the obligation but shapes its form and intensity.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope Principle
sourcetext: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
tensionresolution: Role-differentiation principle resolved the tension by prescribing written notification to the town supervisor rather than a full multi-authority campaign.
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
textreferences: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.571029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation — Engineer A Barn
type: OriginalDesignerPost-SaleSafetyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Current Barn Owner Structural Safety Notification Recipient
appliedto: Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier
appliedto: Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Epistemic Humility Constraint on Escalation Urgency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn, possessed unique knowledge of the structural load calculations and design intent that enabled a professional judgment that removing the columns and footings created a collapse risk under severe snow loads — a judgment no other party was equally positioned to make — generating a post-sale notification obligation grounded in that asymmetric epistemic position.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The sale of the property four years prior does not extinguish Engineer A's professional responsibility to act on unique design knowledge when that knowledge reveals a material safety risk created by post-sale modifications; the obligation arises from the engineer's special epistemic position, not from any ongoing contractual duty.
invokedby: Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property. Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones. Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's direct design knowledge of the original structure provides sufficient professional grounding to overcome epistemic humility constraints; the concern is not speculative but grounded in specific structural engineering judgment about load-bearing element removal.
textreferences: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.558197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing Present Case Barn
type: PropertyOwnerPriorityinSafetyNotificationSequencing
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural safety notification sequencing
appliedto: Current Barn Owner Structural Safety Notification Recipient
appliedto: Town Supervisor Written Safety Notification Recipient
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board held that Engineer A should have first notified the current barn owner of structural integrity concerns before or concurrent with notifying the town supervisor — the owner, as the party with primary legal responsibility for the property and most direct exposure to the risk, should have been the first recipient of the safety notification.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Notification sequencing that bypasses the property owner in favor of municipal authorities is ethically deficient; the owner must be notified first because they bear primary legal responsibility and are most immediately exposed.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing
sourcetext: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
tensionresolution: Owner-first notification is the ethically preferred sequence; municipal notification follows but is not a substitute for owner notification.
textreferences: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.571182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing — Engineer A Bypasses Jones
type: PropertyOwnerPriorityinSafetyNotificationSequencing
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Current Barn Owner Structural Safety Notification Recipient
appliedto: Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier
appliedto: Town Supervisor Written Safety Notification Recipient
balancingwith: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A notified the town supervisor about the barn collapse risk without first notifying Jones (the current property owner), inverting the ethically preferred notification sequence; Jones, as the current owner and primary party responsible for the structure and most directly at risk, should have been Engineer A's first notification target.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Notifying a municipal authority before notifying the property owner is ethically deficient when the owner is identifiable, reachable, and the primary party responsible for the structure; the owner-first sequence respects owner autonomy and positions the most capable actor to authorize immediate remediation.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
tensionresolution: Owner-first notification does not preclude concurrent or subsequent municipal notification; the two obligations are complementary, with owner notification as the ethically preferred first step and municipal notification as the required escalation pathway if the owner fails to act.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.560394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification Present Case Barn
type: WrittenDocumentationRequirementforSafetyNotification
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Current Barn Owner Structural Safety Notification Recipient
appliedto: Town Supervisor Written Safety Notification Recipient
balancingwith: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board held that Engineer A must make a written record of communications with the barn owner and town supervisor, and follow up the verbal communication to the town supervisor with a written confirmation restating the concern — creating a durable record and enabling subsequent escalation if no action is taken.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Written documentation transforms verbal safety warnings into actionable professional records, preserves evidence of obligation discharge, and positions the engineer to escalate further if authorities fail to act.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
sourcetext: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
tensionresolution: Written documentation is a prerequisite to the escalation sequence; without it, the engineer cannot credibly demonstrate prior notification or trigger the deadline-conditioned escalation step.
textreferences: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.571372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Deadline-Conditioned Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Non-Response
type: Deadline-ConditionedCounty-StateBuildingOfficialEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Persistent Safety Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Inaction
defeasible under: Regulatory Non-Response to Engineer A's Safety Notification — Town Supervisor
casecontext: The town supervisor agreed to look into the matter but took no action. Engineer A did not set a deadline or escalate to county or state building authorities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation Present Case Barn
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: After the town supervisor failed to take action within a reasonable period following Engineer A's verbal notification, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the matter to county or state building officials, converting the conditional escalation threat into an actual escalation obligation upon the deadline's expiration.
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
temporalscope: After a reasonable deadline following the town supervisor's failure to act
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.565838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination and Reporting
type: RetiredInspectorUnlicensedEngineeringPracticeDeterminationandReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation
defeasible under: BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Structural Evaluation
casecontext: BER Case No. 00-5: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector (not a licensed engineer) to examine the compromised bridge; the inspector's assessment was used to justify installing crutch piles and reopening the bridge with a five-ton limit.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case No. 00-5, local government engineer)
obligationclass: Retired Inspector Unlicensed Engineering Practice Determination and Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to determine whether the activities of the retired bridge inspector — who was not a licensed engineer and was directed by the non-engineer public works director to examine the bridge and whose assessment was used to justify reopening — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering, and if so, to report those activities to the state engineering licensure board.
sourcetext: In addition, 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.
temporalscope: Upon learning that the retired inspector had performed the structural assessment
textreferences: In addition, 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.572509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Original Designer Post-Sale Barn Safety Notification
type: OriginalDesignerPost-SaleStructuralSafetyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk — Barn Structural Collapse Under Snow Load
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A originally designed and built the barn, sold the property four years later, and subsequently learned that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings and obtained a certificate of occupancy for a barn extension.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold — Engineer A Structural Collapse Concern
derived from principle: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation Present Case Barn
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case, private engineer, original barn designer)
obligationclass: Original Designer Post-Sale Structural Safety Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn, was obligated to notify the current owner (Jones) and the town supervisor when he learned that Jones had removed load-bearing columns and footings, because Engineer A's unique knowledge of the original load calculations and design intent created a professional responsibility to act even absent a current client relationship.
sourcetext: From the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
temporalscope: Upon learning of the structural modifications to the originally designed barn
textreferences: From the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.573811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

New Owner Priority Notification — Engineer A Should Have Notified Jones Before Town Supervisor
type: NewOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeTownSupervisorEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Safety Obligation Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk Public Welfare
prevails over: Engineer A Present Case Original Designer Post-Sale Barn Safety Notification
casecontext: Engineer A bypassed Jones and went directly to the town supervisor with the verbal safety concern, depriving Jones of the opportunity to act voluntarily and promptly.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing — Engineer A Bypasses Jones
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify Jones, the current property owner, of the structural collapse concern before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, so that Jones had the opportunity to take voluntary protective action as the party most immediately affected by the risk.
sourcetext: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications and forming a concern about collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.564700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Proportional Multi-Step Escalation — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Non-Imminent Collapse Risk
type: Non-ImminentStructuralCollapseProportionateMulti-StepResponseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation
prevails over: Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation
casecontext: The collapse risk was tied to severe snow loads (a seasonal, not immediate hazard), making a proportionate multi-step response appropriate rather than either inaction or a full-bore multi-authority emergency campaign.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Proportional Escalation Obligation — Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Proportionate Multi-Step Response Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the response to the barn collapse risk proportionately — notifying Jones, contacting the building authority, providing actionable remedial guidance, and following up in writing — without either suppressing the concern or triggering a disproportionate maximum-emergency campaign, given that the risk was real but not immediately imminent.
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications and assessing the risk profile
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.565544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Engineer
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedPublicSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Bridge safety escalation to supervisor, state/federal transportation officials, licensure board, county commissioners, state officials
balancingwith: Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: As a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge, Engineer A bore a heightened obligation — compelled both as a professional engineer and as a public employee — to pursue full multi-authority escalation when the non-engineer public works director's decision threatened public safety.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public employment with specific infrastructure responsibility creates a dual duty — professional engineering obligation and public trust obligation — that together require a more intensive escalation response than would be expected of a private engineer.
invokedby: Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)
principleclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
sourcetext: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
tensionresolution: The dual duty overrode any deference to the public works director's decision; full escalation was required.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press 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 such other authorities as appropriate.
textreferences: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.570511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Bridge Safety Campaign BER 00-5
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Bridge structural safety decision
appliedto: Resistance to public petition for reopening
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A in BER Case 00-5 closed the bridge, installed barricades, obtained replacement authorization, and resisted public pressure and a petition of ~200 signatures to reopen it, because professional judgment determined the bridge posed a genuine collapse risk to the public.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare requires engineers to maintain safety determinations even against significant public and political pressure when professional judgment identifies genuine danger.
invokedby: Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrode community pressure; County Commission ultimately supported the closure.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.569769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Prohibition BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector
type: UnlicensedPracticeProhibitionandChallengeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Retired bridge inspector's structural assessment
appliedto: State engineering licensure board reporting
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: A retired bridge inspector without a professional engineering license was directed to perform a structural assessment of the compromised bridge and effectively authorized a structural remediation solution — conduct the Board identified as potentially constituting unlicensed practice of engineering that Engineer A should have reported to the state board.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When a non-licensed individual performs acts constituting the practice of engineering, a licensed engineer who observes this has an obligation to determine whether reporting to the licensing board is warranted.
invokedby: Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)
principleclass: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
sourcetext: In addition, 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.
tensionresolution: Board held Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the unlicensed practice to the state board.
textreferences: In addition, 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.570255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Written Documentation Requirement — Engineer A Verbal-Only Town Supervisor Notification
type: WrittenDocumentationRequirementforSafetyNotification
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Verbal notification to Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A communicated the structural collapse concern to the town supervisor only verbally, without following up in writing, which left the safety concern without a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record — contributing to the town supervisor's inaction and Engineer A's inability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A verbal-only notification to a municipal official about a potential structural collapse is insufficient to satisfy the professional obligation of safety notification; written follow-up is required to create an actionable record and prevent the concern from being ignored.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
tensionresolution: The written documentation requirement is not in tension with other principles here; it simply demands a higher standard of care than Engineer A exercised.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.560875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Written Structural Safety Confirmation — Engineer A Post-Verbal Town Supervisor Notification
type: Post-Verbal-NotificationWrittenConfirmationandMonitoringObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Persistent Safety Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Inaction
prevails over: Engineer A Present Case Post-Verbal Written Structural Safety Confirmation to Town Supervisor
casecontext: Engineer A made only a verbal contact with the town supervisor, who agreed to look into the matter but took no action. Engineer A did not follow up in writing or escalate further.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Written Documentation Requirement — Engineer A Verbal-Only Town Supervisor Notification
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Verbal-Notification Written Confirmation and Monitoring Obligation
obligationstatement: After verbally notifying the town supervisor of the structural collapse risk and receiving no action, Engineer A was obligated to follow up with written confirmation of the concern, document all communications, monitor the situation, and set a deadline for corrective action with notice of further escalation if the deadline was not met.
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
temporalscope: Following the verbal notification to the town supervisor and the supervisor's failure to take action
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.564835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
type: Post-SaleSafetyNotifyingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold — Engineer A Structural Collapse Concern
adheres to principle: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation Present Case Barn
adheres to principle: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation — Engineer A Barn
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability — Engineer A Obligation to Act Despite No Current Client Relationship
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk
has obligation: No-Current-Client-Relationship Safety Action — Engineer A Post-Sale Barn
has obligation: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
has obligation: Safety Obligation Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk Public Welfare
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural/building design', 'relationship_to_property': 'Former owner and original designer', 'action_taken': 'Verbal notification to town supervisor'}
caseinvolvement: Originally designed and built the barn with horse stalls on his property; sold the property four years later; subsequently learned that the new owner removed load-bearing columns and footings, creating potential collapse risk under severe snow loads; verbally notified the town supervisor of the danger.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:25:01.783764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:25:01.783764+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'concerned_about', 'target': 'Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier'}
relationships: {'type': 'prior_client_of', 'target': 'Himself as property owner (self-commissioned design)'}
relationships: {'type': 'safety_notified', 'target': 'Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.557285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
type: OriginalDesignerPost-SaleStructuralSafetyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: No-Current-Client-Relationship Safety Action — Engineer A Post-Sale Barn
defeasible under: Owner-Modified Approved Structure Structural Integrity Concern — Barn Extension
casecontext: Engineer A originally designed and built the barn, sold the property to Jones four years later, and subsequently learned that Jones removed load-bearing columns and footings as part of a barn extension approved by the town.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation Present Case Barn
derived from principle: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation — Engineer A Barn
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Original Designer Post-Sale Structural Safety Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as the original designer of the barn with unique knowledge of its structural load calculations and design intent, was obligated upon learning of Jones's structural modifications to notify Jones (the current owner) and relevant public authorities of the potential collapse risk under severe snow loads.
sourcetext: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications made by Jones
textreferences: Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.559440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence Present Case vs BER 00-5
type: ProportionalEscalationObligationCalibratedtoImminenceandBreadthofRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural safety concern
appliedto: Calibration of escalation scope relative to BER 00-5 bridge precedent
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board distinguished the present barn case from BER 00-5 bridge case on grounds of imminence and breadth of risk: the barn risk, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as a potential bridge collapse, and therefore did not require the same 'full-bore' multi-authority escalation campaign — a more measured written notification to the town supervisor was the appropriate initial response.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The scope and intensity of the escalation obligation is a function of both risk magnitude and role relationship; a less imminent and less widespread risk warrants a proportionally measured but still proactive response.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
sourcetext: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
tensionresolution: Proportionality principle resolved the tension by prescribing a measured written notification rather than a full multi-authority campaign.
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.570708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation Present Case Barn
type: Deadline-ConditionedEscalationThreatObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural safety escalation sequence
appliedto: Town Supervisor Written Safety Notification Recipient
balancingwith: Epistemic Humility Constraint on Escalation Urgency
balancingwith: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
balancingwith: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board held that if the town supervisor fails to take adequate steps within a reasonable period after Engineer A's written notification, Engineer A must issue a further written communication to the town supervisor specifying a concrete deadline and stating that failure to act by that deadline will compel Engineer A to bring the matter to county or state building officials.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A deadline-conditioned escalation threat converts passive monitoring into active, time-bounded accountability — ensuring that municipal inaction does not indefinitely defer the engineer's duty to protect the public.
invokedby: Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
principleclass: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation
sourcetext: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
tensionresolution: The deadline-conditioned threat operationalizes the persistent escalation obligation in a procedurally structured way, giving the authority a fair opportunity to act before external escalation is triggered.
textreferences: 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 within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.571527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Bridge Closure Public Pressure Resistance
type: PublicPressureNon-SubordinationofBridgeClosureSafetyDeterminationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility
defeasible under: BER 00-5 Bridge Public Pressure Override
prevails over: Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility
casecontext: BER Case No. 00-5: Engineer A closed a deteriorated bridge (concrete deck on wood piles, 280 feet long, 30 feet above stream) after receiving a bridge inspector's call; a rally and petition demanded reopening; Engineer A explained the damage extent to the County Commission, which decided not to reopen.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Bridge Safety Campaign BER 00-5
derived from principle: Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations Invoked BER 00-5 Bridge
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case No. 00-5, local government engineer)
obligationclass: Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to maintain the bridge closure determination against the public rally and petition of approximately 200 signatures requesting reopening to limited traffic, and to explain the technical basis for the closure to the County Commission rather than yielding to community pressure.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of public petition and during County Commission hearing
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge.
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.572001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedInstitutionalSafetyResponsibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Bridge Closure Public Pressure Resistance
defeasible under: BER 00-5 Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation
casecontext: BER Case No. 00-5: Engineer A was an engineer employed by local government with specific responsibility for the bridge, distinguishing the heightened obligation from that of a private engineer encountering a risk incidentally.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Engineer
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case No. 00-5, local government engineer)
obligationclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge, was obligated to fulfill a heightened safety duty compelled both by professional engineering ethics and by public employee status, requiring immediate and comprehensive escalation through all appropriate channels.
sourcetext: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
temporalscope: Throughout the bridge safety incident from initial closure through remediation
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: in BER Case No. 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 but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.573649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Post-Verbal Written Structural Safety Confirmation to Town Supervisor
type: Post-Verbal-NotificationWrittenStructuralSafetyConfirmationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Verbal-Only Safety Advisory to Town Supervisor — No Written Record
casecontext: Present case: Engineer A communicated the structural collapse concern to the town supervisor only verbally. The Board held that written confirmation and a written record of all communications were required.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification Present Case Barn
derived from principle: Written Documentation Requirement — Engineer A Verbal-Only Town Supervisor Notification
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case, private engineer, original barn designer)
obligationclass: Post-Verbal-Notification Written Structural Safety Confirmation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to follow up the verbal communication to the town supervisor with a written confirmation restating the structural collapse concern, make a written record of all communications with both Jones and the town supervisor, and continue monitoring the situation.
sourcetext: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
temporalscope: Following the verbal notification to the town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.573196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case vs BER 00-5 Proportional Escalation Calibration
type: ProportionalEscalationCalibrationBetweenImminentandNon-ImminentStructuralRiskObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Safety Obligation Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk Public Welfare
defeasible under: Present Case Comparative Precedent Distinguishing
defeasible under: Present Case Graduated Escalation Obligation
casecontext: Present case: The Board distinguished the barn risk from the BER 00-5 bridge risk on grounds of imminence and breadth, holding that the barn situation required a more limited but still multi-step escalation rather than the full-bore campaign required in BER 00-5.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence Present Case vs BER 00-5
derived from principle: Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope Present Case vs BER 00-5
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case, private engineer, original barn designer)
obligationclass: Proportional Escalation Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the scope and intensity of escalation to the limited, non-imminent nature of the barn collapse risk — distinguishing it from the imminent, widespread bridge collapse risk in BER 00-5 — and to pursue a proportionate multi-step response (written notification, monitoring, conditional escalation) rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
sourcetext: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
temporalscope: Upon identifying the structural safety concern and determining the appropriate response level
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.573507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation Present Case Barn
type: OriginalDesignerPost-SaleSafetyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Current Barn Owner Structural Safety Notification Recipient
appliedto: Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier
appliedto: Town Supervisor Written Safety Notification Recipient
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, who originally designed and built the barn, retained a professional obligation to notify the current owner and town supervisor when he learned that post-sale structural modifications (removal of load-bearing columns and footings) created a material risk of structural failure — despite having no contractual relationship with the property, the current owner, or the structure.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:35:48.512422+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineer's unique design knowledge of the original structural system creates a special epistemic responsibility that survives the sale and generates a notification obligation when post-sale modifications are learned of.
invokedby: Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A should make 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 Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
tensionresolution: The post-sale safety notification obligation is triggered by the engineer's unique knowledge of the structural system; the absence of a contractual relationship does not extinguish the obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer: Originally designed and built the barn with horse stalls on his property; sold the property four years later; subsequently learned that the new owner had made structural modifications
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.571684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural integrity risk from column and footing removal
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, upon learning that Jones removed load-bearing columns and footings from the barn Engineer A originally designed, identified a potential structural collapse risk under severe snow loads and took steps to alert the town supervisor, reflecting the paramount obligation to protect public safety even absent any current contractual relationship with the property.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:29:36.226286+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare here requires Engineer A to act on unique design knowledge to prevent potential structural collapse, even though Engineer A sold the property four years prior and has no ongoing professional engagement with the structure.
invokedby: Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides any residual loyalty or confidentiality considerations given the potential for structural collapse endangering persons in or near the barn.
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.560709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

No-Current-Client-Relationship Safety Action — Engineer A Post-Sale Barn
type: No-Current-Client-RelationshipPublicSafetyActionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
defeasible under: Engineer A Post-Sale Continuing Safety Obligation
casecontext: Engineer A had no current professional relationship with Jones or the barn property, having sold it four years earlier, yet retained a professional duty to act upon learning of the credible structural risk.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Professional Accountability — Engineer A Obligation to Act Despite No Current Client Relationship
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: No-Current-Client-Relationship Public Safety Action Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's professional obligation to act on the structural safety concern was not extinguished by the absence of any current client relationship with Jones or the property; Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative safety action — notifying Jones and relevant authorities — based solely on the paramount duty to protect public health and safety.
sourcetext: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications and forming a concern about collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.565703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Safety Obligation Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk Public Welfare
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Present Case vs BER 00-5 Proportional Escalation Calibration
competes with: New Owner Priority Notification — Engineer A Should Have Notified Jones Before Town Supervisor
prevails over: No-Current-Client-Relationship Safety Action — Engineer A Post-Sale Barn
casecontext: Engineer A identified a potential structural collapse risk affecting persons who might occupy or be near the barn, triggering the paramount safety duty under NSPE I.1.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by taking all reasonable steps to address the structural collapse risk in the barn, including notifying the current owner, relevant authorities, and following up to ensure corrective action was taken.
sourcetext: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
temporalscope: Upon learning of the structural modifications and forming a concern about collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.565993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)
type: LocalGovernmentBridgeSafetyEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Engineer
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Bridge Safety Campaign BER 00-5
adheres to principle: Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations Invoked BER 00-5 Bridge
adheres to principle: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Bridge Closure Public Pressure Resistance
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Comparative Case Precedent Risk-Calibrated Escalation Scope
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Supervisor Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination and Reporting
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Local government', 'specialty': 'Bridge infrastructure safety'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed engineer employed by local government with specific assigned responsibility for a deteriorating bridge; closed the bridge, coordinated replacement authorization, observed unsafe traffic violations of the five-ton limit, and bore obligations to escalate to supervisors, state/federal transportation officials, and the state engineering licensure board.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Consulting Engineering Firm (BER 00-5)'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State Engineering Licensure Board'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State/Federal Transportation Officials'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervisor', 'target': "Engineer A's Government Supervisor"}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was an engineer with a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge 280 feet long and 30 feet above the stream.
textreferences: Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic is flowing and the significant movement of the bridge.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
textreferences: Engineer A was an engineer with a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge 280 feet long and 30 feet above the stream.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.554445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Persistent Safety Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Inaction
type: PersistentSafetyEscalationAfterUnresponsiveAuthorityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Non-Response
competes with: Written Structural Safety Confirmation — Engineer A Post-Verbal Town Supervisor Notification
defeasible under: Town Supervisor Verbal Acknowledgment Without Follow-Through — Barn Safety
prevails over: Engineer A Present Case Post-Verbal Written Structural Safety Confirmation to Town Supervisor
casecontext: The town supervisor acknowledged Engineer A's concern and agreed to investigate but took no action. Engineer A did not escalate beyond this initial verbal contact.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Persistent Escalation Obligation Present Case Barn Municipal Inaction
derived from principle: Persistent Escalation Obligation — Engineer A Inaction After Town Supervisor Non-Response
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:31:10.736466+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Persistent Safety Escalation After Unresponsive Authority Obligation
obligationstatement: After the town supervisor failed to take action following Engineer A's verbal notification of the structural collapse risk, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the matter to higher or alternative authorities — such as the county building official, state building authority, or fire marshal — rather than treating the unanswered verbal contact as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
temporalscope: After a reasonable period following the town supervisor's failure to act on the verbal notification
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.564991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation
type: Non-EngineerSafetyOverrideResistancewithFull-BoreMulti-AuthorityEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination and Reporting
competes with: Proportional Multi-Step Escalation — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Non-Imminent Collapse Risk
defeasible under: Present Case Non-Imminent Barn Structural Risk
prevails over: Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Supervisor Escalation
casecontext: BER Case No. 00-5: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired (unlicensed) bridge inspector to examine the bridge and authorized installation of two crutch piles and reopening with a five-ton limit, without follow-up inspection, overriding Engineer A's professional safety determination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Engineer
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:37:47.500487+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER Case No. 00-5, local government engineer)
obligationclass: Non-Engineer Safety Override Resistance with Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to resist the non-engineer public works director's override of the bridge closure by escalating immediately to the supervisor, and then to the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation and highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities, rather than passively observing the ongoing safety violation.
sourcetext: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken.
temporalscope: Upon learning of the non-engineer override and observing ongoing weight limit violations
textreferences: 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 the bridge with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken.
textreferences: By failing to take this action, Engineer A would be ignoring his basic professional and ethical obligations.
textreferences: the Board continued by noting that 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.
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.572684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
type: PublicSafetyEscalationEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation BER 00-5 vs Present Case
adheres to principle: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation Present Case Barn
adheres to principle: Persistent Escalation Obligation Present Case Barn Municipal Inaction
adheres to principle: Persistent Escalation Obligation — Engineer A Inaction After Town Supervisor Non-Response
adheres to principle: Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing Present Case Barn
adheres to principle: Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing — Engineer A Bypasses Jones
adheres to principle: Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence Present Case vs BER 00-5
adheres to principle: Proportional Escalation Obligation — Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
adheres to principle: Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope Present Case vs BER 00-5
adheres to principle: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification — Jones and Current Barn Occupants
adheres to principle: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification Present Case Barn
adheres to principle: Written Documentation Requirement — Engineer A Verbal-Only Town Supervisor Notification
has obligation: Actionable Remedial Guidance — Engineer A to Jones Regarding Barn Structural Risk
has obligation: Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification — Engineer A to Town Building Authority
has obligation: Deadline-Conditioned Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Non-Response
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Original Designer Post-Sale Barn Safety Notification
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case Post-Verbal Written Structural Safety Confirmation to Town Supervisor
has obligation: Engineer A Present Case vs BER 00-5 Proportional Escalation Calibration
has obligation: New Owner Priority Notification — Engineer A Should Have Notified Jones Before Town Supervisor
has obligation: Persistent Safety Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Inaction
has obligation: Proportional Multi-Step Escalation — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Non-Imminent Collapse Risk
has obligation: Written Structural Safety Confirmation — Engineer A Post-Verbal Town Supervisor Notification
has obligation: Written Third-Party Safety Notification — Engineer A to Jones
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural safety assessment'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed engineer in the present case who identified a structural safety concern in a barn, verbally notified the town supervisor, and bears obligations to follow up in writing, notify the current owner, and escalate to county or state building officials if no corrective action is taken within a reasonable period.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 133
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 133
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T16:26:56.550897+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'escalates_to', 'target': 'County or State Building Officials'}
relationships: {'type': 'notifies', 'target': 'Current Barn Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'notifies', 'target': 'Town Supervisor (Present Case)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Safety Escalation Engineer
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
wasattributedto: Case 133 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:47:31.554605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 133 Extraction