NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 00-5
An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5.
The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to benchmark Engineer A's obligations in the present case
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 89-7
Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5 and referenced in the present case
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 90-5
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 92-6
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
Barn exists as a completed structure with defined load-bearing elements; Engineer A holds professional responsibility for original design
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.
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
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.
Barn Extension Executed → Structural Collapse Risk Persists
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
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
Absence of structural engineering review prior to modification
Jones's decision to remove load-bearing columns and footings
Town's approval without adequate structural analysis
Jones (primary); Town (secondary); Engineer A (tertiary)
Removal of load-bearing elements + no remedial reinforcement + no corrective intervention = persistent structural collapse risk
Bridge Inspection Reporting Standard (Consulting Engineering Firm Report)
Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
Engineer A and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the technical foundation for the safety concern
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
Professional structural engineering bodies
Standards for Structural Safety Investigation and Collapse Risk Assessment
Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard
Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
Engineer A in evaluating the structural danger posed by the modified barn
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
Professional engineering norms / state building officials
Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard (Barn Structural Integrity)
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.
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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's obligations regarding the barn
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
CausalLink_Follow Up Verbally with Writte
CausalLink_Issue Written Ultimatum with E
CausalLink_Notify Current Owner in Writin
CausalLink_Verbally Contacts Town Supervi
Local/state government building regulatory authority
Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework
The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued
Town building officials; Engineer A in evaluating whether proper regulatory review occurred
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
Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion — Engineer A Safety Escalation Despite Town Approval
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.
Certificate of Occupancy Governmental Approval Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Escalation Constraint
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.
The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
From the moment Engineer A learned of the approved modifications and formed a structural safety concern
Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Consulting Engineering Firm Bridge Inspection Sealed Report Provider
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (firm)', 'specialty': 'Bridge inspection and structural assessment'}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Local Government (BER 00-5)'}
{'type': 'collaborates_with', 'target': 'Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)'}
a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
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
County Commission Bridge Safety Decision Authority
{'type': 'Elected legislative body', 'jurisdiction': 'County'}
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.
{'type': 'receives_petition_from', 'target': 'Public Petitioners'}
{'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)'}
County Commission Bridge Reopening Authority
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.
Current Barn Owner Structural Safety Notification Recipient
{'type': 'Property owner', 'structure': 'Barn with structural integrity concerns'}
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.
{'type': 'receives_notification_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)'}
Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor
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?
Engineer A's Post-Notification Obligations: Written Follow-Up and Escalation After Town Supervisor Inaction
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.
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.
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.
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?
Engineer A's Notification Sequencing: Should Jones (Current Owner) Have Been Notified Before or Simultaneously with the Town Supervisor?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Licensed Professional Engineer / Property Owner
Engineer A's professional reputation may be implicated in any future structural issues
Future owners may modify the structure without understanding the original structural design intent
Competence: Applied engineering expertise to design a structurally sound structure
Professional standards: Applied engineering judgment to original design
Public safety: Designed structure to safely bear anticipated loads including snow loads
Engineer in conformance with applicable codes and standards
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
Practice only within areas of competence
Produce a structurally sound barn for personal use on his property
Load analysis including snow load calculations
Initial construction phase, approximately four years before sale
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.
Designs and Builds Barn → Barn Construction Completed
Engineer A makes the professional decision to design and construct a barn with horse stalls on his property, establishing the original structural baseline
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
Application of structural engineering knowledge to the design
Engineer A's professional decision to design the barn
Physical construction execution on owned property
Combination of engineering expertise + property ownership + construction resources
Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition — Engineer A BER 00-5 Employment Pressure
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.
Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6, 00-5
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.
Throughout the bridge safety crisis and non-engineer override situation
By failing to take this action, Engineer A would be ignoring his basic professional and ethical obligations.
Professional Norms on Engineer Duty to Escalate Public Safety Concerns
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken
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
Engineer A Actionable Remedial Guidance — Jones Barn Structural Risk
Actionable Structural Remediation Guidance Capability
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.
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.
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.
Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Collaborative Adequacy Assessment
Crutch Pile Remediation Adequacy Collaborative Assessment Capability
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.
BER 00-5: non-engineer public works director directed installation of two crutch piles and reopening with five-ton limit without engineering validation
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.
Engineer A (BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer)
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.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Capability
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.
BER Case No. 00-5 bridge closure scenario; public pressure resistance in face of organized community opposition
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.
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.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice Determination
Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Engineering Practice Determination Capability
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.
BER 00-5: retired bridge inspector (not a licensed engineer) examined bridge and recommended structural remediation solution
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification — Barn Extension
Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Deadline-Conditioned County-State Escalation — Barn Snow Load
Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Communication Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken.
Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Calibration — Barn Snow Load
Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
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.
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.
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.
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
Unspecified time after barn extension completion
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.
Engineer A Multi-Precedent Structural Safety Duty Synthesis — Barn Snow Load
Multi-Precedent Structural Safety Duty Synthesis Capability
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.
The barn snow load case is analyzed against multiple BER precedents to establish the scope and sequence of Engineer A's professional obligations.
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.
Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification — Jones Before Town Supervisor
New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Capability
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.
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.
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.
Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
Engineer A No-Current-Client-Relationship Safety Duty Recognition — Barn Post-Sale
No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Safety Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Collaboration — Jones Barn
Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Client Collaboration Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Capability
Original Designer Post-Sale Structural Safety Notification Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
Engineer A Persistent Safety Escalation After Town Supervisor Inaction
Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Post-Structural-Modification Certificate of Occupancy Compliance Gap Recognition
Post-Structural-Modification Certificate of Occupancy Compliance Gap Recognition Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment — Barn Snow Load
Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment Capability
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.
Engineer A's preliminary assessment of the structural modification risk informed his decision to contact the town supervisor about the potential collapse danger.
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.
Engineer A Present Case Actionable Remedial Guidance to Jones
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.
Present case: Jones as current property owner needs actionable guidance to address structural deficiency in barn following removal of load-bearing elements
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.
Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer)
it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
Engineer A Present Case Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification
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.
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
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.
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.
Engineer A Present Case Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification
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.
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
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.
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
Engineer A Present Case Proportionate Multi-Step Non-Imminent Structural Risk Response
Proportionate Multi-Step Non-Imminent Structural Risk Response Capability
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.
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
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.
From the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing 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 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.
Engineer A Present Case Snow Load Structural Modification Risk Assessment
Snow Load Structural Modification Risk Assessment Capability
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.
Present case: structural assessment of barn modification impact on snow load capacity using original design knowledge
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.
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
Engineer A Present Case Written Safety Confirmation and Monitoring
Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
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.
Present case: Engineer A verbally notified town supervisor but did not follow up in writing or monitor response
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.
Engineer A Present Case vs BER 00-5 Escalation Scope Calibration
Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
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.
Board comparison of present barn collapse risk case against BER 00-5 bridge collapse case to determine appropriate escalation scope
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.
Engineer A (Present Case Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer) and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
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
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.
Engineer A Proportionate Multi-Step Non-Imminent Structural Risk Response — Barn
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Snow Load Structural Modification Risk Assessment
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Written Follow-Up After Verbal Town Supervisor Notification
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Written Third-Party Safety Notification — Jones Barn Structural Risk
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A designs and builds the barn before Engineer A sells the property to Jones
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 before Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor
Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned... Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter.
Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor
Engineer A notifies owner in writing before Engineer A notifies town supervisor in writing
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.
Engineer A notifies town supervisor in writing
Engineer A sells the property to Jones before Jones proposes and executes barn extension
Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones. Later, Jones proposes to extend the barn.
Jones proposes and executes barn extension
Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor before no action taken by town supervisor
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (NSPE-derived)
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.
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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's obligations
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
Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation — Engineer A BER 00-5 Log Trucks and Tankers
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.
Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint
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.
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.
From the moment Engineer A observed traffic violations of the five-ton limit through enforcement resolution
Follow Up Verbally with Written Confirmation to Town Supervisor
Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner
Could create friction with local governmental authority
May compel the town supervisor to act where verbal contact did not
Written record protects Engineer A professionally if harm later occurs
Duty to document safety concerns formally with appropriate authorities
NSPE Code obligation to notify public authorities when public safety is at risk
Obligation to persist in reporting when initial contact yields no action
Professional obligation to create a record of safety-related communications
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
Engineers shall notify appropriate authorities when their professional judgment indicates a public safety risk
Engineers should document professional communications involving safety
Engineer A (Licensed Professional Engineer / Former Property Owner), recommended action
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
Knowledge of appropriate governmental authority and jurisdiction
Professional written communication skills
Structural engineering judgment to articulate the specific nature and basis of the risk
Recommended action following the verbal contact with the town supervisor that yielded no action
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.
Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Non-Response
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.
Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
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.
After the town supervisor's failure to act following Engineer A's verbal notification
Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence — Engineer A Present Case Barn Non-Imminent Risk
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.
Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence and Employment Context Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 00-5, 07-10
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.
From identification of the structural concern through resolution
from the facts in the present case, it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation — Engineer A BER 00-5 Bridge Collapse
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.
Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation Constraint
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.
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.
From the moment the non-engineer override and safety violations were identified through resolution
Issue Written Ultimatum with Escalation Deadline
Escalation to state or county officials may trigger formal investigations with consequences for Jones as property owner
Establishes clear professional record of Engineer A's diligence in pursuing safety remediation
May create adversarial relationship with local governmental officials
Duty to escalate when lower-level authorities fail to act on known safety risks
NSPE Code obligation to notify appropriate authorities at successively higher levels when initial contacts are ineffective
Professional obligation to follow through on safety concerns rather than abandoning them after initial notification
Sustained obligation to protect public health and safety through persistent reporting
Engineers must persist in reporting safety concerns through appropriate channels until action is taken
Engineers shall not be deterred from fulfilling their safety obligations by inaction of authorities
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
Knowledge of the hierarchy of building safety authorities at local, county, and state levels
Professional written communication and documentation skills
Structural engineering judgment to sustain and articulate the basis for the safety concern
Recommended future action if no adequate response is received within a reasonable period after written notification to town supervisor
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.
Issue Written Ultimatum with Escalation Deadline → Structural Collapse Risk Persists (potential resolution)
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
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
Structural Collapse Risk Persists (potential resolution)
A formal deadline creating legal and regulatory accountability
Engineer A's professional ethical obligation to protect public safety
Prior written notifications to Jones and town supervisor having failed to produce action
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
Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier
{'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'relationship_to_property': 'Current owner post-sale', 'action_taken': 'Removed structural columns and footings as part of barn extension'}
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.
{'type': 'approved_by', 'target': 'Town Municipal Certificate Authority'}
{'type': 'purchased_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer'}
Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones
Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof
Jones removes columns and footings during Jones executes barn extension
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation — Barn Structural Collapse Risk
From the point at which the town supervisor fails to act through resolution of the safety risk
Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation State
Engineer A's obligation to escalate the structural safety concern beyond the town supervisor to building officials, state authorities, or other agencies with jurisdiction
Regulatory action by a competent authority, structural remediation, or Engineer A's exhaustion of escalation pathways
Town supervisor's inaction following verbal acknowledgment of the structural safety concern
Town Building Ordinance Governing Structural Modifications
Town officials in approving the barn extension; Engineer A in evaluating adequacy of regulatory review
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
National Society of Professional Engineers
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
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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in deliberating Engineer A's obligations
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding public health and safety, escalation duties, and professional conduct throughout the case analysis
New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor — Engineer A Present Case Barn
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.
New Property Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Constraint
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.
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.
At the point when Engineer A identified the structural collapse risk from the barn modifications
New Property Owner Priority Notification — Engineer A Must Notify Jones Before or With Town Supervisor
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.
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.
Prior to or concurrent with Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor
No-Black-and-White-Standard Fact-Specific Calibration — Engineer A Barn vs. BER 00-5 Bridge
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.
Multi-BER-Precedent Proportional Safety Response Spectrum Constraint
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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review; BER Cases 00-5, 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
From the moment Engineer A identified the structural concern through resolution
each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved
Non-Engineer Public Works Director Safety Override Resistance — Engineer A BER 00-5
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.
Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
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.
From the moment the non-engineer public works director authorized the crutch pile solution and bridge reopening through resolution
Jones may dispute Engineer A's assessment or take no action
Owner notification may prompt faster remediation than governmental channels alone
Written notification creates a formal record that could have legal implications for both parties
Duty to notify the directly affected party of known safety risks
NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public health and safety
Obligation to create a documented record of safety concern communication
Respect for Jones's property rights and autonomy as owner
Engineers should communicate safety concerns to those with the authority and responsibility to act
Professional communications involving safety should be documented in writing
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
Ability to convey technical concerns clearly to a non-engineer property owner
Structural engineering judgment to articulate the specific nature of the risk
Recommended action following verbal contact with town supervisor that yielded no result
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.
Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation — Engineer A Barn
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.
Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation Constraint
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.
From the moment Engineer A learned of the structural modifications to the barn he originally designed
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
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.
Proportionality Calibration Non-Imminent Barn vs. Imminent Bridge — Engineer A Present Case vs. BER 00-5
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.
Proportionality Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Constraint
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.
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.
Throughout Engineer A's response to the barn structural concern
In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
it appears that prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
Proportionality Calibration — Engineer A Non-Imminent Barn Risk vs. BER 00-5 Imminent Bridge Risk
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10; BER Case 00-5 (distinguished)
Throughout Engineer A's response to the structural safety concern
Public Employee Heightened Bridge Safety Escalation — Engineer A BER 00-5 Custodial Responsibility
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.
Public Employee Heightened Bridge Safety Escalation Constraint
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.
Throughout Engineer A's tenure as the responsible government engineer for the bridge
Public Pressure Non-Subordination — Engineer A BER 00-5 Bridge Closure Petition
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.
Public Pressure Safety Determination Non-Subordination Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
From the moment the petition was presented to the County Commission through resolution of the bridge safety issue
Public Safety Paramount — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I — Fundamental Canons; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
From the moment Engineer A learned of the structural modifications and formed a concern about collapse risk
Has Engineer A fulfilled his ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Retired Bridge Inspector Unlicensed Structural Assessor
{'license': 'None (retired inspector, not a PE)', 'status': 'Retired'}
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.
{'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'Non-Engineer Public Works Director Bridge Remediation Decision Maker'}
{'type': 'subject_of_report', 'target': 'Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)'}
Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Performing Engineering Assessment
A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
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.
Critical structural elements such as load-bearing columns and footings may be modified by a non-engineer
Engineer A's professional knowledge of the structure's design would no longer be formally attached to the property
New owner may alter the structure without engineering review
Property owner's legal right to sell personal property
Engineers shall act in a manner that protects public health and safety
Engineers should communicate relevant technical information to affected parties
Transfer ownership of property to Jones; divest himself of the property
Ability to communicate structural design intent to non-engineers
Awareness of which structural elements are critical and should not be modified
Four years after original barn construction
Arguably, proactive duty to inform buyer of critical structural design features and load-bearing elements that should not be altered without engineering review
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.
Sells Property to Jones → Property Ownership Transferred
Engineer A makes the volitional decision to sell the property, including the barn he designed and built, transferring legal ownership and control to Jones
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
Absence of structural disclosure or deed restrictions
Engineer A's volitional decision to sell
Legal transfer of title and property rights
Completed sale transaction + absence of structural warnings = transfer of control without informed stewardship
Standards bodies (e.g., ASCE 7 or equivalent)
Structural Design Standards for Severe Snow Loads
Severe Weather Structural Design Standard
Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
Engineer A in assessing structural adequacy of the modified barn
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
Professional structural engineering standards bodies
Structural Load Calculation Standards for Building Elements
Engineer A in evaluating the structural impact of Jones's modifications
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
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
Ongoing, from completion of barn extension through end of case narrative
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.
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
During or immediately after barn extension construction
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.
Town Certificate Issued → Structural Collapse Risk Persists
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
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
Issuance of certificate of occupancy without verifying load-bearing integrity
Resulting false assurance discouraging further scrutiny by Jones or others
Town's failure to conduct adequate structural review prior to approval
Official approval without structural verification + Jones's reliance on approval + absence of engineer oversight = persistent unaddressed collapse risk
{'license': 'Municipal regulatory authority', 'authority': 'Building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance', 'action_taken': 'Approved extension and issued certificate of occupancy'}
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.
{'type': 'approved_work_of', 'target': 'Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier'}
{'type': 'failed_to_respond_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer'}
County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority
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
After Engineer A's verbal contact with town supervisor
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.
Town Supervisor Written Safety Notification Recipient
{'title': 'Town Supervisor', 'jurisdiction': 'Town (present case)'}
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.
{'type': 'authority_over', 'target': 'Current Barn Owner (indirectly, via building code enforcement)'}
Written Safety Notification Recipient Municipal Supervisor
prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
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
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / State Licensing Board
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard (NSPE-derived)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in assessing Engineer A's obligations regarding the retired bridge inspector
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
Unlicensed Practice Reporting — Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector
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.
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; State Engineering Practice Act
After the retired bridge inspector's activities became known to Engineer A
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.
Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up — Engineer A to Town Supervisor Barn
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.
Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
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.
After the verbal notification to the town supervisor and before or concurrent with monitoring the situation
Engineer A's professional credibility and fulfillment of ethical duty may be difficult to demonstrate if harm later occurs
Verbal communication creates no formal record of Engineer A's concern
Without a written record, the town supervisor may deprioritize or ignore the concern without accountability
Acted on professional judgment that the structure posed a risk to public health and safety
Contacted a governmental authority with jurisdiction over the matter
Partial fulfillment of duty to report known safety hazards to appropriate authority
Engineers shall notify appropriate authorities when public safety is endangered
Engineers should document professional communications involving safety concerns
Alert the town supervisor to the potential structural danger so that official action could be taken to prevent collapse under severe snow loads
Knowledge of snow load requirements and their implications for the modified structure
Structural engineering judgment to assess collapse risk from modified load-bearing elements
Understanding of appropriate governmental authorities to contact
After learning of the barn extension, at an unspecified time post-sale
Duty to document safety communications in writing to create a formal record
Duty to notify the current owner (Jones) first before or alongside contacting the town
Obligation to follow up verbal contact with written confirmation to ensure accountability
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.
Verbally Contacts Town Supervisor → Town Supervisor Takes No Action
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
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
Engineer A's verbal report to the town supervisor
Town supervisor's acknowledgment of the concern
Town supervisor's subsequent failure to follow through on investigation
Town Supervisor (primary); Engineer A (secondary for relying solely on verbal notification)
Verbal-only notification without written follow-up + town supervisor inaction = unresolved safety hazard
Written Third-Party Safety Notification — Engineer A to Jones Barn Owner
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.
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Building Owners Constraint
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.
At the point when Engineer A identified the structural collapse risk and before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor
authorization for bridge replacement obtained before state and federal department reviews
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.
authorization for bridge replacement obtained
barn extension built meets certificate of occupancy issued
The extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
barricades erected on Friday before barricades found dumped on Monday
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.
barricades found dumped before more permanent barricades installed
On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river... More permanent barricades and signs were installed.
bridge built in the 1950s before bridge transferred to county secondary road system
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.
bridge transferred to county secondary road system
bridge inspector telephone call before barricades erected
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.
bridge transferred to county before bridge inspector telephone call in June 2000
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.
bridge inspector telephone call in June 2000
certificate of occupancy issued before Engineer A learns of the extension
A certificate of occupancy is issued. Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse.
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.8
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.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
Public welfare obligation overrode community pressure; County Commission ultimately supported the closure.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Safety determination prevailed; County Commission declined to reopen the bridge.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.82
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
The Board held that Engineer A retained an obligation to challenge and escalate the non-engineer's decision rather than acquiesce to it.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
Board held Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the unlicensed practice to the state board.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
Proportionality principle resolved the tension by prescribing a measured written notification rather than a full multi-authority campaign.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
The dual duty overrode any deference to the public works director's decision; full escalation was required.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Owner-first notification is the ethically preferred sequence; municipal notification follows but is not a substitute for owner notification.
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.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.89
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.
Public welfare obligation overrides any residual loyalty or confidentiality considerations given the potential for structural collapse endangering persons in or near the barn.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
Distinguishing analysis produced a calibrated obligation appropriate to the present case's facts rather than mechanical application of the bridge precedent.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
Role-differentiation principle resolved the tension by prescribing written notification to the town supervisor rather than a full multi-authority campaign.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
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.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.79
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.
Persistent escalation is required but calibrated to the measured scope appropriate to the present case's risk level and role relationship.
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.
The written documentation requirement is not in tension with other principles here; it simply demands a higher standard of care than Engineer A exercised.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.84
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
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.
authorization obtained for bridge replacement
follow-up written contact to town supervisor before escalation to county or state building officials
If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time... Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials.
follow-up written contact to town supervisor
escalation to county or state building officials
more permanent barricades installed before detailed inspection report completed
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 '
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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.
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Several departments in the state and federal transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks before the funds could be used.
town approval of changes before certificate of occupancy issued
verbal communication with town supervisor before written confirmation to town supervisor
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.
verbal communication with town supervisor
written confirmation to town supervisor before follow-up written contact if no action taken
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.
follow-up written contact if no action taken
Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Safety Escalation — Engineer A Present Case Barn Extension
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.
Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Duty Constraint
Engineer A notified the town supervisor (the individual who issued the certificate of occupancy for the barn extension) of his concern
From the moment Engineer A identified the structural concern despite the existing certificate of occupancy
Collaborative Crutch Pile Adequacy Verification — Engineer A BER 00-5 Consulting Firm
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.
Collaborative Consulting Firm Structural Adequacy Verification Constraint
After the crutch pile installation decision was made and before or concurrent with escalation to supervisory authorities
Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation — Engineer A to County-State Building Officials After Town Supervisor Non-Response
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.
After written notification to the town supervisor and expiration of a reasonable response period
Non-Engineer Public Works Director Bridge Remediation Decision Maker
{'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'title': 'Public Works Director'}
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.
{'type': 'directs', 'target': 'Retired Bridge Inspector (Unlicensed)'}
{'type': 'overrides', 'target': 'Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)'}
Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Maker
Non-Imminent Structural Risk Collaborative Continuation — Engineer A and Jones
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.
Non-Imminent Structural Risk Client Collaboration Continuation Constraint
Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
{'license': 'None (non-engineer municipal official)', 'authority': 'Municipal supervisory authority', 'action_taken': 'Agreed to look into the matter; no follow-up action taken'}
Received verbal notification from Engineer A about the potential structural collapse risk; acknowledged the concern and agreed to investigate but took no corrective action.
{'type': 'notified_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer'}
{'type': 'oversees', 'target': 'Town building approval process'}
Verbal-Only Notification Insufficiency — Engineer A Must Follow Up Town Supervisor Verbally With Written Report
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.
After the town supervisor acknowledged the concern verbally but took no action
Written Safety Notification — Engineer A Must Notify Jones in Writing
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.
Written Safety Notification Third-Party Owner Constraint
Upon forming a concern about the structural collapse risk and prior to or alongside governmental escalation
BER 00-5 Bridge Public Pressure Override
From the rally and petition presentation through the County Commission's decision not to reopen (Commission ultimately upheld closure, but public pressure was applied)
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
Public Pressure Overriding Engineering Safety Closure State
County Commission decision to reopen bridge despite engineering safety closure, following petition with ~200 signatures and community rally
County Commission decision not to reopen the bridge
The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge
Rally held and petition with approximately 200 signatures presented to County Commission requesting bridge reopening
BER 00-5 Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation
From the moment Engineer A observed overweight traffic crossing the bridge through the period requiring escalation
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
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
Not terminated within case facts — escalation obligation remained active
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
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
Bridge reopened with five-ton limit but log trucks and tankers crossing regularly; significant bridge movement observed
BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Public Works Director Reopening Decision
From public works director's decision through bridge reopening with five-ton limit and observed overweight traffic violations
Non-Engineer Authority Directing Post-Closure Reopening State
Non-engineer public works director directing retired (unlicensed) bridge inspector to evaluate bridge and authorizing crutch pile installation and reopening with five-ton limit
Not terminated within the case facts — bridge remained open with overweight traffic observed
a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
Non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) examine the bridge
Certificate of Occupancy Issued for Structurally Compromised Barn Extension
From issuance of the certificate of occupancy through resolution of the structural safety concern
Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency State
Town's official approval of the barn extension despite removal of load-bearing structural elements
Regulatory re-evaluation, structural remediation, or revocation of the certificate of occupancy
Town issues certificate of occupancy for the barn extension after Jones removes columns and footings
Engineer A Post-Sale Continuing Safety Obligation
From the moment Engineer A learns of Jones's structural modifications through resolution of the safety concern
Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation State
Engineer A's ethical relationship to the barn structure after property sale to Jones
Successful notification of Jones and/or regulatory authorities, or remediation of the structural risk
Engineer A learns that Jones has removed load-bearing columns and footings as part of a barn extension
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk — Snow Load on Modified Barn
From Engineer A's assessment through structural remediation or demolition
Engineer A is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
The modified barn structure's assessed vulnerability to collapse under severe snow loads
Structural reinforcement, demolition, or independent engineering clearance
Engineer A's professional assessment that removal of columns and footings creates collapse risk under foreseeable snow loads
Owner-Modified Approved Structure Structural Integrity Concern — Barn Extension
From completion of the barn extension through structural remediation
Owner-Modified Approved Structure Structural Integrity Concern State
The barn's structural integrity following Jones's removal of load-bearing columns and footings under town approval
Structural remediation or independent engineering assessment confirming safety
Jones removes columns and footings supporting the roof as part of the approved barn extension
Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Collapse Risk — Barn
From Engineer A's discovery of the modifications through remediation or regulatory action
Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern State
Engineer A's assessment that the modified barn is at risk of collapse under severe snow loads, despite official CO issuance
Structural remediation, independent engineering confirmation of safety, or regulatory intervention
Engineer A learns of the removal of columns and footings and assesses collapse risk under snow loads
Present Case Comparative Precedent Distinguishing
During the Board's ethical analysis of the present case
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing State
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
Board's determination of the appropriate calibrated obligation for the present case
In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
in BER Case No. 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question
the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials
Board's identification of BER Case 00-5 as a potentially applicable precedent followed by recognition of material factual differences
Present Case Graduated Escalation Obligation
From Engineer A's identification of the structural concern through the period of monitoring and potential escalation
prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor
Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
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
Either adequate corrective action by owner/town supervisor, or Engineer A's escalation to county/state building officials
If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken 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
Engineer A's assessment of barn structural integrity concern combined with town supervisor's verbal acknowledgment without follow-through
Present Case Non-Imminent Barn Structural Risk
From Engineer A's assessment of the barn's structural integrity through the period of the Board's analysis
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
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
Not terminated within case facts — risk remains unaddressed pending adequate response
the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
Engineer A's assessment of structural integrity concerns in the barn following owner modifications
Present Case Owner-First Notification Priority
From Engineer A's identification of the structural concern through direct notification of the owner
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
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
Engineer A directly notifying the barn owner of the structural concern
Engineer A identifying structural integrity concerns in the barn on privately owned property
Present Case Written Escalation Ultimatum Obligation
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
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
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
Either town supervisor takes adequate action, or Engineer A escalates to county/state building officials
Reasonable period elapsed after Engineer A's initial written notification to town supervisor without adequate corrective action
Public Safety at Risk — Barn Structural Collapse Under Snow Load
From Engineer A's assessment of collapse risk through structural remediation or demolition
The risk to occupants and the public posed by the potentially structurally compromised barn
Structural remediation, demolition, or independent engineering clearance
Engineer A's professional assessment that removal of load-bearing elements creates collapse risk under severe snow loads
Regulatory Non-Response to Engineer A's Safety Notification — Town Supervisor
From the point at which the town supervisor fails to follow through, persisting until regulatory action or Engineer A's escalation
Regulatory Non-Response to Safety Notification State
The town's failure to act on Engineer A's verbal safety notification regarding the barn's structural risk
Regulatory action by town or other authority, or Engineer A's escalation to additional authorities
Town supervisor agrees to investigate but takes no action
Town Supervisor Verbal Acknowledgment Without Follow-Through — Barn Safety
From Engineer A's verbal contact with the town supervisor through either regulatory action or Engineer A's escalation to additional authorities
Town Supervisor Verbal Acknowledgment Without Follow-Through State
Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor and the supervisor's failure to act
Town supervisor takes concrete action, Engineer A escalates to building department or state authority, or safety risk is otherwise resolved
Town supervisor verbally agrees to look into the structural safety concern but takes no action
Verbal-Only Safety Advisory to Town Supervisor — No Written Record
From Engineer A's verbal contact through either written documentation or resolution of the safety concern
Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record State
Engineer A's verbal-only communication of the structural safety concern to the town supervisor, without a written engineering report or formal notification
Engineer A produces a written safety notification, or the matter is resolved through other means
Engineer A chooses to contact the town supervisor verbally rather than through a formal written notification
Actionable Remedial Guidance — Engineer A to Jones Regarding Barn Structural Risk
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.
Actionable Remedial Guidance to Property Owner Obligation
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.
Upon Engineer A forming the concern about structural collapse risk due to the modifications
Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification — Engineer A to Town Building Authority
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.
Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Structural Modification Safety Re-Notification Obligation
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.
Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications and the certificate of occupancy issuance
Engineer A BER 00-5 Comparative Case Precedent Risk-Calibrated Escalation Scope
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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (applying precedent to present case)
Comparative Case Precedent Risk-Calibrated Escalation Scope Obligation
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.
During ethical review of the present case
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.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification
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.
Engineer A (BER Case No. 00-5, local government engineer)
Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification and Reporting Obligation
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.
After crutch pile installation and bridge reopening, upon observation of ongoing safety concerns
Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation — Town Supervisor Inaction
Engineer A Public Safety Escalation Engineer (Present Case)
Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
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.
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.
Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Principle
BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Structural Evaluation
From public works director's directive through the retired inspector's evaluation and resulting reopening authorization
a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
Unlicensed Inspector Performing Engineering Evaluation State
Retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) performing structural evaluation of condemned bridge and providing findings used to authorize reopening
Not formally terminated — the evaluation's findings were acted upon without engineering review
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
Non-engineer public works director directed retired bridge inspector to examine the bridge
Engineer A Present Case Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation
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.
Engineer A (present case, private engineer, original barn designer)
Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation Obligation
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.
Conditional on town supervisor's failure to act within a reasonable period after written notification
Engineer A Present Case New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor
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.
New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Obligation
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.
Upon identifying the structural safety concern, before or concurrent with notifying the town supervisor
Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold — Engineer A Structural Collapse Concern
Epistemic Humility Constraint on Escalation Urgency
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.
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.
Engineer A Post-Sale Safety Notifying Engineer
Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting
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.
Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation BER 00-5 Public Works Director
Bridge crutch pile installation decision
Bridge reopening with five-ton limit authorization
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.
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.
Persistent Escalation Obligation — Engineer A Inaction After Town Supervisor Non-Response
County Commission Bridge Safety Decision Authority (by analogy to escalation pathway)
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.
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.
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.
Professional Accountability — Engineer A Obligation to Act Despite No Current Client Relationship
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.
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.
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.
No significant conflict: Engineer A has no current client relationship creating loyalty or confidentiality obligations that would constrain the accountability obligation.
Proportional Escalation Obligation — Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
Barn structural collapse risk under severe snow loads
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.
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.
Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
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.
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification — Jones and Current Barn Occupants
Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing
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.
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.
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
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.
Written Third-Party Safety Notification — Engineer A to Jones
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.
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Obligation
Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications and forming a concern about collapse risk
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation BER 00-5 vs Present Case
Ethical obligation determination in present barn case
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.
Prior precedents do not automatically apply; the ethical reasoning must identify material factual differences and explain how those differences alter the applicable obligations.
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
in BER Case No. 00-5, the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials
Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Supervisor Escalation
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.
Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Obligation
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.
Upon observation of weight limit violations
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.
Persistent Escalation Obligation Present Case Barn Municipal Inaction
Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation
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.
Municipal inaction does not discharge the engineer's safety obligation; the engineer must continue escalating through available channels until adequate action is taken.
Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations Invoked BER 00-5 Bridge
County Commission bridge reopening petition
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.
Engineer A Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer (BER 00-5)
Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope Present Case vs BER 00-5
Barn structural safety escalation scope determination
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.
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.
Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope Principle
Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation — Engineer A Barn
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.
Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation
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.
Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing Present Case Barn
Barn structural safety notification sequencing
Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
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.
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.
Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing — Engineer A Bypasses Jones
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.
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.
Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification Present Case Barn
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.
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.
Deadline-Conditioned Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Non-Response
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.
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.
After a reasonable deadline following the town supervisor's failure to act
Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination and Reporting
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.
Retired Inspector Unlicensed Engineering Practice Determination and Reporting Obligation
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.
Upon learning that the retired inspector had performed the structural assessment
Engineer A Present Case Original Designer Post-Sale Barn Safety Notification
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.
Original Designer Post-Sale Structural Safety Notification Obligation
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.
Upon learning of the structural modifications to the originally designed barn
New Owner Priority Notification — Engineer A Should Have Notified Jones Before Town Supervisor
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.
New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor Escalation Obligation
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.
Proportional Multi-Step Escalation — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Non-Imminent Collapse Risk
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.
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Proportionate Multi-Step Response Obligation
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.
Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications and assessing the risk profile
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Engineer
Bridge safety escalation to supervisor, state/federal transportation officials, licensure board, county commissioners, state officials
Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
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.
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.
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Bridge Safety Campaign BER 00-5
Resistance to public petition for reopening
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.
Public welfare requires engineers to maintain safety determinations even against significant public and political pressure when professional judgment identifies genuine danger.
basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition BER 00-5 Retired Bridge Inspector
Retired bridge inspector's structural assessment
State engineering licensure board reporting
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.
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.
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
Written Documentation Requirement — Engineer A Verbal-Only Town Supervisor Notification
Verbal notification to Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority
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.
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.
Written Structural Safety Confirmation — Engineer A Post-Verbal Town Supervisor Notification
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.
Post-Verbal-Notification Written Confirmation and Monitoring Obligation
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.
Following the verbal notification to the town supervisor and the supervisor's failure to take action
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural/building design', 'relationship_to_property': 'Former owner and original designer', 'action_taken': 'Verbal notification to town supervisor'}
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.
{'type': 'concerned_about', 'target': 'Jones Property Owner Structural Modifier'}
{'type': 'prior_client_of', 'target': 'Himself as property owner (self-commissioned design)'}
{'type': 'safety_notified', 'target': 'Town Supervisor Municipal Safety Inaction Authority'}
Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property
Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification — Engineer A Barn Snow Load Collapse Risk
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.
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.
Upon Engineer A learning of the structural modifications made by Jones
Proportional Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence Present Case vs BER 00-5
Calibration of escalation scope relative to BER 00-5 bridge precedent
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.
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.
Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation Present Case Barn
Barn structural safety escalation sequence
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.
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.
Engineer A BER 00-5 Bridge Closure Public Pressure Resistance
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.
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Obligation
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.
Upon receipt of public petition and during County Commission hearing
Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility
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.
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility Obligation
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.
Throughout the bridge safety incident from initial closure through remediation
Engineer A Present Case Post-Verbal Written Structural Safety Confirmation to Town Supervisor
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.
Post-Verbal-Notification Written Structural Safety Confirmation Obligation
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.
Following the verbal notification to the town supervisor
Engineer A Present Case vs BER 00-5 Proportional Escalation Calibration
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.
Proportional Escalation Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Obligation
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.
Upon identifying the structural safety concern and determining the appropriate response level
Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation Present Case Barn
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.
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.
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
Public Welfare Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk
Barn structural integrity risk from column and footing removal
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.
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.
No-Current-Client-Relationship Safety Action — Engineer A Post-Sale Barn
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.
No-Current-Client-Relationship Public Safety Action Obligation
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.
Safety Obligation Paramount — Engineer A Barn Collapse Risk Public Welfare
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.
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.
Upon learning of the structural modifications and forming a concern about collapse risk
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Local government', 'specialty': 'Bridge infrastructure safety'}
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.
{'type': 'collaborator', 'target': 'Consulting Engineering Firm (BER 00-5)'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State Engineering Licensure Board'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State/Federal Transportation Officials'}
{'type': 'supervisor', 'target': "Engineer A's Government Supervisor"}
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.
Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
Engineer A observed that traffic is flowing and the significant movement of the bridge.
Persistent Safety Escalation — Engineer A After Town Supervisor Inaction
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.
Persistent Safety Escalation After Unresponsive Authority Obligation
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.
After a reasonable period following the town supervisor's failure to act on the verbal notification
Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation
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.
Non-Engineer Safety Override Resistance with Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation
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.
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.
Upon learning of the non-engineer override and observing ongoing weight limit violations
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.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural safety assessment'}
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.
{'type': 'escalates_to', 'target': 'County or State Building Officials'}
{'type': 'notifies', 'target': 'Current Barn Owner'}
{'type': 'notifies', 'target': 'Town Supervisor (Present Case)'}
Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.