Engineer A's ethical landscape expands beyond the contractual scope of work to encompass an unsolicited but observable public safety concern; moral and professional obligations are now in tension with contractual boundaries
During construction observation services for Client X
A potential safety issue exists on the adjacent property being constructed for Owner Y, independent of Engineer A's assigned project. This hazard is a pre-existing condition that Engineer A encounters during the normal course of construction observation work.
Adjacent Safety Hazard Exists (Event 1) → Take Direct Action with Adjacent Site Parties (Action 5)
A potential safety issue exists on the adjacent property being constructed for Owner Y, independent [of Engineer A's contracted scope]... Engineer A chooses to directly contact responsible parties on the adjacent site
If no genuine hazard existed, Engineer A would have no basis for direct action; if internal escalation had fully resolved the issue, direct action would be unnecessary
Take Direct Action with Adjacent Site Parties (Action 5)
Actual existence of a safety hazard on the adjacent property (Event 1)
Engineer A's decision not to ignore the risk (Action 3 resolved toward action)
Engineer A's observation and recognition of that hazard (Event 2)
Inadequate resolution through internal escalation alone (Action 4)
Owner Y / adjacent site contractor (for creating hazard); Engineer A (for response decision); ES Consulting (shared, for organizational response)
Existing hazard + professional observation + ethical duty + insufficient internal resolution = sufficient basis for direct external action
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 65-12
As early as BER Case No. 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe.
the engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question
NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations
Cited as early precedent establishing that engineers who believe a product is unsafe are ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production, even at risk of employment loss
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 82-5
In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts...
if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns... he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
Cited as precedent distinguishing between ethical obligation and ethical right to blow the whistle; established that where no direct public health/safety danger exists, continued escalation is a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory ethical duty
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 88-6
In BER Case No. 88-6, an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works...
the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others
Cited as precedent establishing that an engineer who is aware of ongoing disregard for law by supervisors must escalate to proper authorities (including state officials when local officials are complicit), and that inaction can make the engineer an accessory to violations
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Third-Party Safety Obligations
Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y
Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in analogical reasoning about third-party safety duties
Prior BER case decisions addressing engineer obligations when safety hazards are observed outside the scope of the direct client engagement, providing analogical reasoning for Engineer A's situation with Owner Y
BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusal Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty
Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination Capability
The engineers in BER 65-12 exercised the capability to recognize that their ethical right to refuse participation in unsafe product processing or production was a permissible personal conscience action, even at the cost of employment, rather than a mandatory duty imposed by the Code
BER 65-12 — engineers believed a product was unsafe and refused to participate in its processing or production
BER ruling that engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in processing or production of a product they believed unsafe
BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusers
as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question
The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment, but the engineers had a right to maintain their position based upon the provisions of the NSPE Code
BER 65-12 Engineers Unsafe Product Refusal Personal Conscience Employment Cost Acceptance
Group of engineers believed a product was unsafe; Board determined they were ethically justified in refusing to participate but recognized this would likely lead to loss of employment
Personal Conviction Dissent Permissibility Boundary Constraint
Engineers who believed a product was unsafe were ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production, but were constrained to accept the professional and employment consequences of that refusal — including likely loss of employment — as the cost of exercising personal conviction over professional obligation.
As early as BER Case No. 65-12 , the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe.
Throughout the engineers' continued refusal to participate in the processing or production of the product believed to be unsafe
The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment, but the engineers had a right to maintain their position based upon the provisions of the NSPE Code.
The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Whistleblower Personal Conscience Non-Mandatory Continuation
Defense industry engineer reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors; employer rejected reports; Board ruled no mandatory obligation to continue campaign or report externally, but recognized ethical right to do so as matter of personal conscience
Defense Industry Engineer (BER Case 82-5)
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Conscience Non-Mandatory Action Constraint
The defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and time delays to the employer was not subject to a mandatory ethical obligation to continue the internal campaign or report to external authorities after the employer rejected the reports — the engineer had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue, as the matter was one of personal conscience rather than mandatory professional obligation.
In BER Case No. 82-5 , where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to a proper authority, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
After the employer rejected the engineer's reports regarding excessive subcontractor costs and time delays
the Board was unwilling to issue a blanket statement that there was an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue the campaign within the company and make the issue one for public discussion.
BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination
The defense industry engineer in BER 82-5 had the capability to recognize that after the employer rejected reports of excessive costs and time delays, no mandatory ethical obligation to continue escalation existed, but an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience remained
BER 82-5 — defense industry engineer documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors to employer, who rejected the reports
BER ruling that the engineer had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue whistleblowing after employer rejection
the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to a proper authority, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
the ethical duty or right of the engineer became a matter of personal conscience, but the Board was unwilling to issue a blanket statement that there was an ethical duty in these kinds of situations
BER 88-6 City Engineer Superior Suppression State Regulatory Reporting Non-Compliance
City engineer responsible for disposal of plants and beds associated with poultry processing facilities observed overflow capacity violations required to be reported to state authorities; city administrator directed internal-only reporting; Board found engineer's inaction made her an accessory to ongoing legal violation
City Engineer / Director of Public Works (BER Case 88-6)
Superior Authority Environmental Regulatory Reporting Suppression Non-Compliance Constraint
The city engineer/director of public works was constrained from complying with the city administrator's directive to report overflow capacity violations only internally, and was required to escalate to state water pollution control authorities as the 'proper authorities' after internal escalation to city officials failed — the engineer's inaction made her an accessory to the ongoing legal violation.
BER Case No. 88-6; NSPE Code of Ethics; State water pollution control reporting requirements
After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, the engineer knew, or should have known, that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably, state officials.
From the point at which the city engineer recognized that internal escalation had failed and that city officials were directing suppression of legally required reporting
The Board said that the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others.
being warned by the city administrator to report the problem only to him
BER 88-6 City Engineer Supervisory Chain Environmental Compliance Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Supervisor
Supervisory Chain Environmental Compliance Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Supervisor Capability
The city engineer/director of public works in BER 88-6 was required to recognize, after multiple failed attempts to modify the views of the city administrator and city council, that state officials were the proper authorities for reporting the environmental law violation, and to escalate accordingly
BER 88-6 — city engineer observed overflow capacity problems required to be reported to state water pollution control authorities, but was warned by city administrator to report only to him
BER ruling that the engineer failed her ethical obligations by not escalating to state water pollution control authorities after local supervisory chain proved unresponsive
BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, the engineer knew, or should have known, that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably, state officials
The Board could not find it credible that a city engineer/director of public works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation
As early as BER Case No. 65-12... In BER Case No. 82-5... In BER Case No. 88-6, cases are presented in ascending chronological order by year-encoded case numbers
As early as BER Case No. 65-12... In BER Case No. 88-6, 1965 precedes 1988
In BER Case No. 82-5... In BER Case No. 88-6, sequential presentation with 1982 preceding 1988 per case numbering conventions
BER Ethics Bodies BER Multi-Case Precedent Factual Distinction Analysis Engineer A Case
BER Multi-Case Precedent Factual Distinction Analysis Capability
The BER must analyze BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6, identify the key factual distinctions between those precedents and Engineer A's case, and correctly determine that the absence of professional scope of responsibility over the observed hazard is the key distinction that changes the mandatory/permissible character of the safety response
BER analysis of Engineer A's obligations regarding out-of-scope adjacent property safety observations
BER comparative analysis of three prior cases against Engineer A's situation, concluding that the professional scope of responsibility distinction is determinative
The facts in the present case are somewhat different from the earlier cited cases, notably because the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
As early as BER Case No. 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors
In BER Case No. 88-6, an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works
The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
BER Ethics Bodies Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Nexus Determination Engineer A Case
Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Nexus Determination Capability
The BER must correctly identify that the key factual distinction between the present case and prior BER cases (65-12, 82-5, 88-6) is that the observed safety hazard falls outside Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility, and that this distinction determines the mandatory versus permissible character of the safety response
BER comparative analysis of Engineer A's case against BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6
BER analysis distinguishing the present case from prior precedents on the basis of professional scope of responsibility
BER Ethics Bodies Unlimited Professional Liability Exposure Recognition Engineer A Case
Unlimited Professional Liability Exposure Recognition and Resistance Capability
The BER must recognize that imposing upon Engineer A an unlimited personal and professional safety accountability obligation for all observed hazards — regardless of professional scope of responsibility — would expose Engineer A to unreasonable personal and professional liability and thrust the engineer into a never-ending scope of activities
BER analysis of whether Engineer A has a mandatory obligation to respond to safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property
BER ruling that Engineer A has no mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action on out-of-scope adjacent property safety observations
To impose such a responsibility upon an engineer could thrust the engineer into a never-ending scope of activities that are beyond what is reasonable, and could expose the engineer to unlimited personal and professional liability
To do otherwise would make Engineer A accountable for a wide range of public duties and responsibilities that are beyond the bounds of reason
CausalLink_Decide Whether to Ignore Adjac
CausalLink_Escalate Internally to ES Cons
CausalLink_Observe Adjacent Safety Issues
CausalLink_Perform Construction Observati
CausalLink_Refuse Participation in Unsafe
CausalLink_Report Excessive Costs to Empl
CausalLink_Report Overflow Capacity Probl
CausalLink_Take Direct Action with Adjace
Client X Construction Observation Client
{'service_received': 'Construction observation', 'relationship_to_owner_y': 'No direct relationship'}
The client for whom ES Consulting and Engineer A are performing construction observation services on a specific project
{'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'Owner Y'}
{'type': 'retains_services_of', 'target': 'ES Consulting'}
Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
Engineer A should bring this potential safety issue to the attention of Engineer A's supervisor and ES Consulting.
The Board explicitly recommends that Engineer A escalate the observed potential safety issue through internal channels — specifically to Engineer A's supervisor and ES Consulting — as the appropriate first step in addressing the adjacent property safety concern.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should report internally to ES Consulting is necessary but analytically incomplete because it does not address what happens next. The internal escalation obligation is best understood as the first step in a graduated response sequence, not as a terminal ethical obligation. If ES Consulting receives Engineer A's report and takes no meaningful action within a reasonable time — whether due to reluctance to interfere with an out-of-scope project, business relationship considerations, or simple inaction — Engineer A's ethical posture shifts from permissible discretion to something approaching mandatory independent action. The supervisory inaction complicity principle established in BER 88-6, where the City Engineer's failure to act on known environmental violations implicated subordinates who remained silent, applies here by analogy: Engineer A cannot indefinitely shelter behind an unresponsive employer chain when identifiable workers on the adjacent Owner Y site remain exposed to a hazard that Engineer A uniquely identified. The faithful agent obligation owed to Client X does not extend to passive complicity in foreseeable harm to third parties when the employer intermediary has demonstrably failed to act.
The Board's assumption that the safety issues do not pose imminent danger is analytically load-bearing in a way the Board does not fully acknowledge. The entire architecture of the Board's graduated escalation framework — internal report sufficient, no obligation to notify Owner Y directly — rests on this single factual assumption. Yet the Board provides no guidance on who bears responsibility for making the imminence determination, how that determination should be documented, or what standard of professional judgment applies. Engineer A, as the construction observation professional on site, is the only party with firsthand observational knowledge of the hazard. This means Engineer A bears the de facto responsibility for the imminence assessment even though the Board does not explicitly assign it. If Engineer A misjudges a genuinely imminent risk as merely potential, the entire chain of graduated obligations collapses and workers may be harmed. The Board's framework therefore implicitly demands that Engineer A apply the construction safety knowledge standard with rigor and document the basis for the imminence assessment in writing — not merely as a liability protection measure, but as a professional duty integral to the calibration of the escalation obligation itself. Failure to document this assessment would leave Engineer A, ES Consulting, and Client X exposed if the hazard materializes.
The Board's reliance on the absence of any direct relationship between Engineer A, ES Consulting, Client X, and Owner Y as a limiting principle for the direct notification obligation is analytically vulnerable because it conflates contractual nexus with professional duty. The NSPE Code's paramount public safety obligation under Section I.1 is not conditioned on the existence of a contractual relationship with the endangered party. Engineer A's professional competence in construction observation is precisely what enables identification of the hazard — a capability that a passing layperson would not possess. This creates a heightened duty of care grounded in professional role and specialized knowledge rather than in contract. The no-nexus boundary the Board draws is therefore better understood as a procedural sequencing rule — escalate through the employer chain first — rather than as a substantive ceiling on Engineer A's ultimate obligations. Comparing the scenario to the BER 82-5 defense industry engineer, where whistleblowing was treated as a personal conscience right rather than a mandatory duty, reveals that the Board's framework consistently treats out-of-scope safety action as discretionary at the individual level while channeling mandatory obligations through institutional intermediaries. This approach is coherent only if those intermediaries can be relied upon to act — an assumption that the Board's framework does not adequately stress-test.
The Board assumes that the potential safety issues do not pose an imminent danger; therefore, Engineer A does not have an obligation to report this issue beyond his superiors in ES Consulting.
The Board makes a formal interpretive determination that because the safety risk is potential (not imminent), Engineer A's ethical obligation is bounded at internal escalation to ES Consulting superiors and does not extend to broader external reporting obligations. This reflects the Board's application of proportional escalation calibrated to risk imminence.
In response to Q101: The threshold at which a 'potential' safety issue escalates from internal reporting to direct external notification is not purely a matter of certainty but of a combined assessment of probability, severity, and reversibility of harm. A hazard that is low-probability but catastrophic in consequence — such as structural collapse that could kill multiple workers — should trigger direct notification to Owner Y or regulatory authorities even before full confirmation, because the cost of waiting for certainty is borne entirely by third parties who have no knowledge of the risk. The Board's assumption that the hazard is non-imminent implicitly delegates this threshold determination to Engineer A and ES Consulting, but the Board does not specify who bears final responsibility for that judgment call. Analytically, the determination should rest with the most technically competent party who has directly observed the condition — Engineer A — subject to review by ES Consulting. If Engineer A's professional assessment is that the hazard is serious even if not yet imminent, that assessment should govern the escalation decision, and Engineer A should document the basis for that judgment to preserve accountability.
In response to Q102: If ES Consulting receives Engineer A's internal report and takes no action to notify Owner Y or the relevant subcontractor, Engineer A does acquire an independent and escalating ethical obligation. The Board's framework channels Engineer A's initial response through the employer intermediary, but that channeling is premised on the assumption that ES Consulting will act responsibly on the information. When that premise fails — through inaction, delay, or deliberate suppression — the ethical rationale for deferring to the employer evaporates. Continued silence by Engineer A after supervisory inaction would not merely be a missed opportunity for discretionary action; it would constitute a form of passive complicity in the ongoing hazard, analogous to the situation in BER 88-6 where a City Engineer's failure to escalate beyond an unresponsive superior was treated as ethically problematic. Engineer A's complicity in that scenario is not equivalent to ES Consulting's, because Engineer A is the original observer and the only party with direct firsthand knowledge, but it is real and grows with each passing day that the hazard persists unreported to those who could act on it.
In response to Q103: Engineer A's professional competence in construction observation does create a heightened duty of care toward foreseeably endangered third parties, even those outside the contractual scope of engagement. The NSPE Code's public safety paramount obligation is not bounded by contract; it is bounded by knowledge and professional capacity. An engineer who lacks the expertise to recognize a structural hazard bears no special duty to identify one. But Engineer A, by virtue of professional training and active field presence, is uniquely positioned to recognize the adjacent hazard — and that unique epistemic position generates a corresponding moral responsibility. The contractual scope defines what Engineer A is paid to do, not the outer limit of what Engineer A is ethically permitted or required to do when public safety is at stake. Scope-of-work limitations are a legitimate basis for allocating commercial liability, but they are an incomplete ethical defense when the engineer possesses safety-critical knowledge that no other party is positioned to act on.
In response to Q104: Engineer A has a strong practical and ethical interest in creating a contemporaneous written record of the observed adjacent safety hazard, the date and nature of the observation, and all subsequent communications with ES Consulting regarding it. The Board does not address documentation obligations explicitly, but they follow directly from the structure of the Board's own conclusions. If Engineer A's obligation is to report internally to ES Consulting, then the existence, content, and timing of that report become legally and ethically significant if the hazard later materializes into harm. Without documentation, Engineer A cannot demonstrate compliance with the reporting obligation, ES Consulting cannot demonstrate receipt and response, and Client X cannot demonstrate that its agent acted appropriately. Documentation also serves the public interest by creating an accountability trail that may deter inaction by ES Consulting. Written records should capture: the specific conditions observed, the professional basis for concern, the date of internal notification, and any response or non-response received from ES Consulting.
In response to Q201: The conflict between the public welfare paramount principle and the scope-bounded public safety obligation is real, and the Board resolves it implicitly in favor of a modified scope-bounded approach — requiring internal escalation but not direct external notification — without fully articulating why the scope boundary should limit the public welfare obligation in this context. The more defensible resolution is that the public welfare paramount principle governs the question of whether Engineer A must act at all, while the scope-bounded obligation governs only the initial channel through which that action is taken. In other words, scope does not determine whether Engineer A must respond to the observed hazard; it determines the appropriate first step in responding. The public welfare principle should govern when the scope-bounded channel proves inadequate.
In response to Q202: The tension between Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client X and the proactive risk disclosure principle is best resolved by recognizing that these obligations operate on different objects. The faithful agent obligation governs Engineer A's performance of contracted services for Client X — it requires focused, competent, in-scope work and prohibits diverting Client X's resources or attention to unrelated matters. The proactive risk disclosure principle governs Engineer A's response to safety-critical knowledge acquired incidentally during that performance. These are not genuinely competing obligations because acting on the adjacent safety observation does not require Engineer A to breach any duty owed to Client X; it requires only that Engineer A spend a modest amount of time and effort reporting internally to ES Consulting. The faithful agent obligation becomes a genuine constraint only if Engineer A were to abandon the Client X engagement entirely or divert substantial resources to the adjacent site — neither of which is required by the disclosure obligation.
In response to Q203: The conflict between the out-of-scope discretionary response principle and the do-no-harm obligation is the most ethically significant tension in this case, and the Board does not fully resolve it. Characterizing Engineer A's response to the adjacent hazard as 'discretionary' implies that choosing not to act is ethically permissible. But the do-no-harm obligation — which is not merely a positive duty to help but a negative duty to refrain from contributing to foreseeable harm — is not discretionary. If Engineer A's silence foreseeably contributes to injury or death on the adjacent site, that silence is not a neutral omission; it is a morally significant choice. The discretionary framing is appropriate only for the question of how far Engineer A must go beyond internal reporting — not for the question of whether Engineer A must do anything at all. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should report internally is consistent with this analysis, but the discretionary language surrounding that conclusion understates the moral weight of the obligation.
In response to Q204: The principle of contextual calibration of public safety obligations — which treats whistleblowing as a personal conscience right rather than a mandatory duty, as established in BER 82-5 — does create tension with the third-party direct notification obligation when Owner Y has no other means of learning about the hazard. The BER 82-5 framework was developed in a context where other parties within the engineer's own organization or project chain had access to the relevant safety information. In the present case, Owner Y is entirely outside any information chain that would naturally surface the hazard. When the affected third party has no independent means of learning about a risk, the moral weight of the notification obligation increases substantially, and the personal conscience framing becomes less defensible. The contextual calibration principle should itself be calibrated to account for whether the affected party has any alternative pathway to safety-critical information — and where none exists, the obligation should shift from discretionary to mandatory.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, NSPE Code Section I.1's categorical imperative to hold public safety paramount does not automatically override the employer intermediary process, but it does set an unconditional floor below which no scope-of-work limitation or organizational hierarchy can reach. The categorical duty is not to notify Owner Y directly in all cases; it is to ensure that the hazard is actually addressed. The employer intermediary channel is ethically permissible as a first step precisely because it is a reasonable means of fulfilling the categorical duty — not because the duty is diminished by the contractual relationship. However, if the intermediary channel fails, the categorical duty reasserts itself in full force and requires Engineer A to act directly. A deontological reading of the Code therefore supports the Board's conclusion as a first-step prescription but rejects any reading that treats internal escalation as the final and complete discharge of Engineer A's duty regardless of outcome.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's conclusion that internal escalation to ES Consulting is sufficient produces an acceptable expected outcome only if ES Consulting can be relied upon to act promptly and effectively on Engineer A's report. If ES Consulting's response is uncertain — due to business relationship concerns, resource constraints, or organizational inertia — then the expected value of the internal-only escalation strategy is materially lower than a strategy that combines internal escalation with direct written notification to Owner Y. The marginal cost of direct notification to Owner Y is low; the marginal benefit in terms of probability-weighted harm reduction is potentially very high. A consequentialist analysis therefore suggests that the Board's conclusion is suboptimal unless supplemented by a direct notification requirement, or at minimum a requirement that Engineer A verify that ES Consulting has actually taken action within a defined timeframe before treating the obligation as discharged.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, an engineer of genuine professional integrity would not be satisfied with internal escalation alone when there is meaningful uncertainty about whether ES Consulting will act. The virtues of courage, prudence, and civic responsibility collectively demand more than procedural compliance with a reporting chain. Courage requires Engineer A to be willing to act beyond the comfortable minimum when lives may be at stake. Prudence requires Engineer A to assess realistically whether the internal channel will actually protect the workers on the adjacent site. Civic responsibility requires Engineer A to recognize that professional licensure carries obligations to the broader public that cannot be fully discharged by organizational loyalty. A virtuous engineer in Engineer A's position would report internally as a first step, document the report, follow up to confirm action was taken, and be prepared to escalate directly to Owner Y or regulatory authorities if ES Consulting fails to act — not because a rule requires it, but because that is what a person of genuine professional character would do.
In response to Q304: The Board's graduated imminence framework — requiring more aggressive escalation only when danger is imminent — does represent a principled moral distinction, but it is a consequentialist distinction embedded within a nominally deontological framework. The distinction between imminent and non-imminent danger is not grounded in the nature of the duty itself; the duty to protect public safety does not diminish because harm is temporally distant. Rather, the imminence distinction is grounded in a consequentialist assessment of the urgency and probability of harm, which then calibrates the required response. This reveals that the Board's ethical framework is implicitly hybrid: it uses deontological language to establish the existence of the duty but consequentialist reasoning to calibrate its intensity. This is not necessarily illegitimate — most applied ethics frameworks are hybrid in practice — but it means the Board cannot claim that the imminence threshold is a categorical moral boundary. It is a pragmatic calibration that could be revised if the probability or severity of non-imminent harm were sufficiently high.
In response to Q401: If ES Consulting takes no action after receiving Engineer A's internal report, Engineer A acquires a direct and no longer merely discretionary ethical obligation to notify Owner Y or the relevant regulatory authority. The point at which supervisory inaction transforms permissible discretionary action into mandatory duty is when Engineer A has reasonable grounds to believe that (a) the hazard persists, (b) ES Consulting will not act within a timeframe that adequately protects the workers at risk, and (c) no other party with knowledge of the hazard is positioned to act. At that point, Engineer A's continued silence becomes ethically indistinguishable from the complicity identified in BER 88-6, where a City Engineer's deference to an unresponsive superior was found to be ethically inadequate. The transition from discretionary to mandatory is not triggered by a fixed time period but by Engineer A's professional judgment that the internal channel has been exhausted without result.
In response to Q402: If the observed safety issue had been assessed as posing imminent danger, the Board's own graduated framework would require Engineer A to bypass ES Consulting and notify Owner Y, the subcontractor, or a regulatory authority directly. This scenario does reveal that the Board's ethical framework is fundamentally consequentialist in its treatment of public safety obligations: the duty's intensity and required action are calibrated to the probability and imminence of harm rather than derived from a categorical rule. This is not a flaw in the framework — consequentialist calibration of safety obligations is practically necessary and morally defensible — but it does mean that the Board's conclusions cannot be treated as categorical rules. They are context-sensitive judgments that depend on the assessed severity and imminence of the hazard. Engineers applying this framework must therefore exercise genuine professional judgment about hazard severity rather than defaulting to the minimum action the framework permits.
In response to Q403: If Engineer A had observed the same adjacent safety hazard purely as a private citizen passing by — with no professional engagement on the adjacent or any nearby site — the NSPE Code's obligations would still apply to Engineer A as a licensed professional, because professional ethical obligations attach to the person, not merely to the engagement. However, the practical weight of those obligations would differ in important ways. As a private citizen observer, Engineer A would lack the contextual authority and organizational standing to make a credible internal report to any employer intermediary with a nexus to the hazard. The obligation would therefore shift more directly toward personal action — contacting Owner Y or a regulatory authority — because no intermediary channel exists. This comparison reveals that the Board's conclusion rests not merely on the contractual scope of the engagement but on the existence of an organizational channel through which the safety concern can be efficiently routed. Where that channel does not exist, the obligation to act directly is stronger, not weaker.
In response to Q404: If Engineer A had previously worked on a project for Owner Y and retained some residual professional familiarity with Owner Y's operations, that prior relationship would strengthen the case for direct notification to Owner Y but would not be the decisive factor under a principled analysis. The Board's reliance on the absence of any direct relationship as a limiting principle is analytically vulnerable because the moral weight of the notification obligation derives from the existence of the hazard and Engineer A's unique knowledge of it — not from the existence of a prior contractual relationship. A prior relationship would provide a practical pathway and a social license for direct contact, making direct notification more natural and less intrusive. But the absence of such a relationship does not eliminate the moral basis for direct notification; it merely removes one facilitating factor. The Board's no-nexus analysis therefore identifies a relevant consideration but overstates its limiting force by treating the absence of a relationship as a near-dispositive constraint rather than one factor among several.
The tension between the faithful agent obligation owed to Client X and the public welfare paramount principle was resolved not by subordinating one to the other, but by channeling the public safety obligation through the employer intermediary structure. The Board effectively held that Engineer A's duty to hold public safety paramount does not dissolve the scope-of-work boundary — it reshapes how that duty is discharged. Because ES Consulting sits between Engineer A and the broader world of affected parties, the faithful agent obligation and the public welfare obligation are reconciled by requiring Engineer A to act within the professional chain of authority rather than bypassing it. This resolution teaches that public safety primacy is not an unconditional license to act unilaterally; it is a substantive obligation that must be pursued through structurally appropriate channels unless those channels demonstrably fail. The principle prioritization is therefore sequential rather than hierarchical: public safety is paramount in substance, but faithful agency governs the procedural pathway through which that substance is delivered.
The principle of scope-bounded public safety obligation and the do-no-harm obligation exist in unresolved tension in this case, and the Board's framework does not fully dissolve that tension — it defers it. By treating the adjacent safety hazard as a non-imminent risk and limiting Engineer A's mandatory obligation to internal escalation, the Board implicitly accepts that a residual risk of harm to third-party workers on Owner Y's site may persist if ES Consulting fails to act. The do-no-harm obligation, taken seriously, would seem to require that Engineer A ensure the hazard is actually communicated to those who can remedy it — not merely that Engineer A has discharged a procedural reporting step. The Board's resolution prioritizes institutional process integrity and scope-of-responsibility coherence over outcome assurance, which means the principle of do-no-harm is satisfied only in a formal, not a substantive, sense. This case teaches that when scope-bounded obligations and harm-prevention obligations collide, the Board's precedent resolves the tension in favor of process fidelity, leaving outcome responsibility with the employer intermediary rather than the observing engineer — a resolution that is institutionally coherent but ethically incomplete when supervisory inaction is a realistic possibility.
The principle of contextual calibration of public safety obligations — drawn from the BER precedents in cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6 — interacts with the third-party direct notification obligation in a way that reveals a structural asymmetry in the Board's ethical framework: the more attenuated the professional relationship between the engineer and the endangered party, the more the public safety obligation is treated as discretionary rather than mandatory, even though the severity of potential harm to that party is entirely independent of the relational distance. This means the Board's framework effectively treats relational proximity as a proxy for the intensity of the safety duty, which is a principle-tension that the Board does not explicitly acknowledge or justify. The case teaches that when no direct nexus exists between the engineer and the endangered third party, the whistleblowing-as-personal-conscience-right principle from BER 82-5 displaces the categorical public safety paramount principle from Code Section I.1, producing a framework in which the engineer's obligation is calibrated more by contractual geography than by the objective magnitude of risk. This calibration is institutionally pragmatic but theoretically vulnerable to the deontological critique that categorical duties do not diminish with relational distance.
Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor
Engineer A in assessing the nature and severity of observed safety issues during construction observation
Establishes the scope of safety knowledge Engineer A is expected to apply when performing construction observation services and identifying potential safety issues on adjacent construction activity
Should Engineer A escalate the observed adjacent safety hazard to ES Consulting as the employer intermediary, or should Engineer A take direct unilateral action to notify Owner Y or the subcontractor without first routing the concern through the employer chain?
Engineer A, while performing construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting, incidentally observes potential safety issues arising from subcontractor work on an adjacent property belonging to Owner Y — a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, nor Client X has any direct relationship. The core question is whether Engineer A must act on this observation and, if so, through what channel.
Report the observed adjacent safety hazard to the immediate supervisor and ES Consulting as the employer and prime consultant, allowing the firm to coordinate the appropriate organizational response and determine whether direct notification to Owner Y is warranted — satisfying the public safety obligation through the proper institutional channel.
Bypass the employer intermediary chain and contact Owner Y or the subcontractor directly in writing to disclose the observed safety concern, on the grounds that the public welfare paramount obligation under NSPE Code I.1 is not conditioned on contractual nexus and that routing through ES Consulting introduces delay that may expose workers to continued risk.
Decline to act on the adjacent site observation on the basis that the safety concern falls entirely outside the contracted scope of construction observation services for Client X, and that imposing a duty to report on every incidentally observed hazard would expose Engineer A and ES Consulting to unlimited liability for conditions they have no professional mandate to assess.
Should Engineer A limit the response to internal escalation by reporting the adjacent safety hazard to ES Consulting and supervisors, or should Engineer A also take direct action with Owner Y and adjacent site parties if the internal channel proves inadequate?
Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer: Whether to escalate the observed adjacent safety hazard only through the internal employer chain (ES Consulting) or to take direct action with Owner Y and adjacent site parties when ES Consulting may not act
Report the observed adjacent safety hazard to the supervisor and ES Consulting in writing, document the observation and notification contemporaneously, and treat the internal escalation as the complete discharge of the mandatory obligation — while remaining prepared to escalate further only if ES Consulting demonstrably fails to act within a reasonable timeframe.
Report internally to ES Consulting and simultaneously provide direct written notification to Owner Y and the relevant subcontractor of the observed safety hazard, on the grounds that Engineer A's unique epistemic position and the absence of any other information pathway to Owner Y creates a non-discretionary disclosure obligation that cannot be fully delegated to an employer intermediary whose response is uncertain.
Report the observed hazard to ES Consulting in writing with a documented professional assessment of the risk level, and explicitly communicate to ES Consulting that if no confirmable action is taken within a defined reasonable timeframe, Engineer A will proceed to notify Owner Y or the relevant regulatory authority directly — treating the internal channel as a first step in a graduated response sequence rather than a terminal obligation.
Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
If ES Consulting fails to take meaningful action after receiving Engineer A's internal report of the adjacent safety hazard, should Engineer A treat the internal escalation as a complete discharge of the ethical obligation, or must Engineer A independently escalate further — by notifying Owner Y, the subcontractor, or a regulatory authority directly?
After Engineer A reports the observed adjacent safety hazard to ES Consulting, the question shifts to what ES Consulting is obligated to do with that information, and — critically — what Engineer A's obligations become if ES Consulting takes no meaningful action. This decision point addresses the graduated escalation sequence and the conditions under which supervisory inaction transforms Engineer A's permissible discretionary further action into a mandatory independent duty.
Regard the completed internal escalation to ES Consulting as a full and sufficient discharge of Engineer A's ethical obligation for a non-imminent hazard, consistent with the BER 82-5 personal conscience framework, and take no further independent action unless and until the hazard is reassessed as imminent.
Document the internal report and follow up with ES Consulting within a defined timeframe; if ES Consulting has taken no meaningful action and the hazard persists, independently notify Owner Y or the relevant regulatory authority in writing — on the grounds that supervisory inaction eliminates the ethical rationale for continued deference to the employer intermediary and that Engineer A's continued silence would constitute passive complicity in ongoing harm.
Notify both ES Consulting and Owner Y concurrently in writing at the time of initial reporting, on the grounds that the marginal cost of direct notification is low, Owner Y has no independent means of learning about the hazard, and routing exclusively through ES Consulting introduces delay whose cost is borne entirely by third-party workers with no knowledge of the risk.
Upon receiving Engineer A's internal report of the adjacent safety hazard, should ES Consulting actively coordinate a response — including determining whether to notify Owner Y directly — or may ES Consulting treat the matter as outside its contractual scope and decline to take further action beyond acknowledging receipt of Engineer A's report?
ES Consulting, upon receiving Engineer A's internal report of the observed adjacent safety hazard on Owner Y's property, faces its own independent organizational obligation to coordinate an appropriate response. This decision point addresses what ES Consulting must do with the information — including whether it must determine whether direct notification to Owner Y is warranted — and how the firm's response (or inaction) affects the collective discharge of the public welfare obligation.
Upon receiving Engineer A's report, ES Consulting actively evaluates the severity and imminence of the observed hazard, determines whether direct written notification to Owner Y or the relevant subcontractor is warranted, and takes documented action — fulfilling the firm's role as the institutional intermediary through which the collective public welfare obligation is discharged.
Acknowledge receipt of Engineer A's internal report, document it in the project file, and take no further action on the grounds that Owner Y's project has its own site supervision and professional oversight, that ES Consulting has no contractual mandate to assess or report on adjacent properties, and that intervening without invitation could expose the firm to liability for unauthorized professional advice.
Inform Client X of Engineer A's observation and seek Client X's guidance or consent before taking any action toward Owner Y or the subcontractor, on the grounds that ES Consulting's primary duty runs to Client X and that any action affecting adjacent parties should be coordinated with the client whose project created the context for the observation.
Should Engineer A report the observed adjacent safety hazard internally to ES Consulting supervisors, or should Engineer A directly notify Owner Y or the relevant subcontractor without waiting for ES Consulting to act?
Engineer A, performing construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting, has incidentally observed a potential safety hazard on the adjacent Owner Y property. Engineer A must decide whether to report this out-of-scope observation internally to ES Consulting supervisors, take direct action to notify Owner Y or the affected subcontractor, or treat the observation as outside professional responsibility entirely.
Bring the observed adjacent safety hazard to the immediate attention of Engineer A's supervisor and ES Consulting management, documenting the observation in writing, and rely on ES Consulting as the employer intermediary to determine whether and how to notify Owner Y or the subcontractor.
Report the observed hazard to ES Consulting supervisors simultaneously with direct written notification to Owner Y or the affected subcontractor, on the grounds that Engineer A's unique professional knowledge and the absence of any guarantee that ES Consulting will act creates an independent obligation to ensure the endangered parties actually receive the safety information.
Decline to report the adjacent hazard on the basis that Engineer A's contractual engagement is limited to Client X's property, that no professional relationship exists with Owner Y, and that assuming responsibility for out-of-scope conditions would expose Engineer A and ES Consulting to undefined liability and scope creep.
If ES Consulting fails to act on Engineer A's internal report of the adjacent safety hazard, should Engineer A escalate directly to Owner Y or a regulatory authority, or treat the obligation as discharged by the completed internal report?
Having reported the adjacent safety hazard internally to ES Consulting, Engineer A must determine what escalation response is appropriate if ES Consulting takes no meaningful action within a reasonable timeframe. The question is whether Engineer A's ethical obligation is fully discharged by the initial internal report, or whether supervisory inaction triggers an independent and escalating duty to notify Owner Y or regulatory authorities directly — and at what point the transition from permissible discretion to mandatory duty occurs.
After a reasonable period during which ES Consulting has failed to act on the internal report, notify Owner Y or the relevant regulatory authority directly, on the grounds that the employer-intermediary rationale evaporates when the intermediary demonstrably fails to act and Engineer A's continued silence would constitute passive complicity in the ongoing hazard.
Regard the completed internal report to ES Consulting as fully discharging Engineer A's ethical obligation, on the grounds that the employer intermediary structure appropriately places responsibility for further action with ES Consulting, and that Engineer A lacks the contractual authority or professional standing to bypass the employer chain for an out-of-scope observation.
Actively follow up with ES Consulting to confirm whether action has been taken, document all communications and non-responses in writing, and treat the obligation as escalating from discretionary to mandatory only after documented evidence of ES Consulting's inaction — preserving the employer intermediary process while creating an accountability trail that supports further escalation if necessary.
Should Engineer A apply a rigorous documented professional assessment of hazard imminence and severity to calibrate the escalation response, or defer the imminence determination to ES Consulting based on Engineer A's verbal or informal report alone?
Engineer A must determine the appropriate level of professional response when the observed adjacent safety hazard is characterized as 'potential' rather than confirmed, and the Board's graduated escalation framework requires Engineer A to assess whether the hazard is imminent or non-imminent. Because Engineer A is the only party with firsthand observational knowledge, Engineer A bears de facto responsibility for the imminence determination — a judgment that calibrates the entire chain of escalation obligations and that should be documented as a professional duty rather than merely a liability protection measure.
Apply Engineer A's construction observation expertise to produce a contemporaneous written assessment of the hazard's probability, severity, and imminence, documenting the specific conditions observed, the professional basis for the imminence determination, and the date of internal notification — treating this documentation as a professional duty that calibrates the escalation obligation and creates an accountability trail for ES Consulting, Client X, and Engineer A.
Provide ES Consulting with a verbal or informal description of the observed conditions and allow ES Consulting management — who may have broader project context and organizational authority — to make the imminence determination and decide on the appropriate escalation response, on the grounds that Engineer A's contractual role does not extend to formal safety assessments of adjacent properties.
Treat the uncertainty about imminence as itself a reason to apply a precautionary standard — reporting the hazard to ES Consulting with an explicit recommendation for immediate direct notification to Owner Y — on the grounds that when the cost of underestimating imminence is borne entirely by third-party workers with no knowledge of the risk, the escalation threshold should be set conservatively rather than waiting for confirmed imminence.
Should Engineer A report the observed adjacent safety hazard internally to ES Consulting supervisors, or limit attention strictly to the contracted scope of work for Client X?
Engineer A, while performing construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting, observes a potential safety hazard on the adjacent Owner Y property. Engineer A must decide whether to act on this incidentally acquired safety knowledge, and if so, through what channel — given that the adjacent site falls entirely outside the contractual scope of engagement and no direct relationship exists between Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X and Owner Y.
Bring the observed adjacent safety hazard to the attention of the immediate supervisor and ES Consulting through the employer intermediary channel, documenting the observation, the professional basis for concern, and the date of notification — treating internal escalation as the mandatory first step required by the public safety paramount obligation.
Decline to act on the adjacent site observation on the grounds that the hazard falls entirely outside the contractual scope of the Client X engagement, treating the scope-of-work boundary as a complete ethical defense and relying on Owner Y's own site supervision to identify and address any hazards on their property.
Bypass the ES Consulting employer intermediary and contact Owner Y or the subcontractor directly to communicate the observed hazard, on the grounds that the public welfare paramount principle under NSPE Code Section I.1 creates an unconditional duty to ensure the endangered party receives the safety-critical information regardless of contractual geography.
If ES Consulting fails to act on Engineer A's internal report of the adjacent safety hazard, should Engineer A escalate further by notifying Owner Y or a regulatory authority directly, or treat the internal report as a complete discharge of the ethical obligation?
After Engineer A reports the adjacent safety hazard internally to ES Consulting, Engineer A must determine what further obligations arise — particularly if ES Consulting takes no meaningful action within a reasonable timeframe. The question is whether internal escalation fully discharges Engineer A's ethical duty, or whether supervisory inaction triggers an independent and escalating obligation to notify Owner Y or a regulatory authority directly.
After a reasonable period during which ES Consulting has failed to act on the internal report, contact Owner Y, the subcontractor, or the relevant regulatory authority directly to communicate the safety hazard — treating supervisory inaction as eliminating the discretionary character of further escalation and creating a mandatory independent obligation grounded in the public safety paramount principle and the supervisory inaction complicity principle from BER 88-6.
Regard the internal escalation to ES Consulting as a complete and final discharge of Engineer A's ethical obligation, on the grounds that the no-nexus limiting principle and the whistleblowing-as-personal-conscience-right framework (BER 82-5) make any further direct notification discretionary rather than mandatory, and that responsibility for further action rests with ES Consulting as the employer intermediary.
After the initial internal report, actively follow up with ES Consulting to confirm whether action has been taken, document all communications and non-responses in writing, and set a defined professional judgment threshold — based on hazard persistence and ES Consulting's demonstrated inaction — at which Engineer A will treat the obligation as having escalated to require direct notification of Owner Y or regulatory authorities.
Should Engineer A apply a rigorous documented professional assessment of hazard imminence and severity to determine the appropriate escalation level, or defer the imminence characterization to ES Consulting after making the internal report?
The board's graduated escalation framework assumes the observed hazard is non-imminent, but Engineer A — as the construction observation professional with firsthand observational knowledge — is the only party positioned to make the imminence determination. Engineer A must decide how to assess and document the severity of the hazard, and whether the non-imminence assumption holds, since the entire architecture of the board's ethical framework (internal escalation sufficient vs. direct notification required) depends on this single factual judgment.
Apply professional construction observation expertise to make a rigorous, documented assessment of the hazard's probability, severity, and reversibility — recording specific conditions observed, the professional basis for the imminence characterization, and the date of the assessment — and use that documented judgment to determine whether the situation requires internal escalation only or immediate direct notification of Owner Y or regulatory authorities.
Report the observed hazard to ES Consulting with a factual description of conditions and defer the imminence characterization and escalation decision to ES Consulting supervisors, on the grounds that Engineer A lacks investigative authority over the adjacent site and that the employer intermediary structure assigns responsibility for escalation decisions to the organizational level above Engineer A.
Given the uncertainty inherent in assessing a hazard on a site outside Engineer A's contractual scope, apply a precautionary standard that treats any unconfirmed but plausible safety risk as potentially imminent — and notify Owner Y or the relevant subcontractor directly without waiting for ES Consulting's response — on the grounds that the cost of underestimating imminence is borne entirely by third-party workers who have no knowledge of the risk.
Possible reputational or ethical criticism for inaction despite awareness of risk
Potential harm to workers or the public on the adjacent site if safety issues are not addressed
Risk that the adjacent safety issue could escalate and affect Client X's project
Avoiding assumption of liability and responsibility beyond reasonable professional bounds
Respecting the boundaries of professional scope and contractual engagement
Avoidance of 'never-ending scope' of duties that would make engineering practice unworkable
NSPE Code: Safety, health, and welfare of the public held paramount
Reasonable limitation of professional responsibility to defined scope
Avoid exceeding the defined scope of professional engagement, prevent exposure to unlimited personal and professional liability, and maintain focus on contracted obligations to Client X
Personal conscience obligation to respond to recognized safety risks, even if not formally enforceable
Potential tension with NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare
Professional judgment to assess scope boundaries
Risk assessment regarding personal and professional liability
Immediately after observing the potential safety issues on the adjacent property
Engineer A faces and must resolve the decision of whether to take no action regarding the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, treating the matter as entirely outside professional responsibility. This is a volitional choice point explicitly addressed by the Board's analysis.
Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk (Action 3) → Escalate Internally to ES Consulting and Client X Superiors (Action 4)
Engineer A faces and must resolve the decision of whether to take no action... Engineer A chooses to bring the observed adjacent safety issues to the attention of superiors within ES Consulting and Client X
Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk (Action 3)
If Engineer A had decided to ignore the risk (Action 3 resolved toward inaction), no internal escalation would occur; alternatively, if no internal hierarchy existed, Engineer A might proceed directly to external action
Escalate Internally to ES Consulting and Client X Superiors (Action 4)
Engineer A having made an affirmative decision not to ignore the risk
Engineer A's recognition that the issue exceeds individual authority to resolve unilaterally
Existence of an internal reporting hierarchy within ES Consulting
NSPE Code obligation to hold public safety paramount
Engineer A (primary); ES Consulting leadership (secondary upon receiving report)
Decision not to ignore + available internal escalation pathway + professional duty = internal escalation action
{'type': 'Engineering consulting firm', 'function': 'Prime consultant / employer of Engineer A'}
ES Consulting is the engineering firm that employs Engineer A and serves as the prime consultant on the Client X project. The Board identifies ES Consulting superiors as the appropriate first point of escalation for Engineer A's adjacent safety observation.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Client X'}
bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X
ES Consulting Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Owner Y Safety
ES Consulting's failure to act as a reliable intermediary would trigger Engineer A's conditional direct notification obligation to Owner Y
Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Constraint
ES Consulting, upon receiving Engineer A's report of observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, is constrained from failing to act as a reliable intermediary — if ES Consulting fails to coordinate appropriate notification to Owner Y or relevant authorities, Engineer A's conditional obligation to escalate directly is triggered.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case precedent on employer intermediary reliability
Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
Upon receipt of Engineer A's escalation report regarding Owner Y's adjacent property safety issues
a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
ES Consulting Prime Consultant Superior Position Deference Coordination
Prime Consultant Superior Position Deference in Multi-Party Project Capability
ES Consulting, as the prime consultant with superior project knowledge and overall responsibility, possesses the capability to receive Engineer A's out-of-scope safety observation and make an informed evaluation of its significance, coordinating the appropriate response to the Owner Y safety issues from a position of superior knowledge of project history and interrelationships.
ES Consulting is the prime consulting firm employing Engineer A and serving as prime consultant to Client X, placing it in a superior position to evaluate and coordinate the response to the Owner Y safety observation
ES Consulting's role as prime consultant receiving Engineer A's report of adjacent property safety issues and coordinating the appropriate response
In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional consensus
Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
Engineer A in evaluating whether to take action beyond formal professional channels given the absence of a direct client relationship with Owner Y
Provides normative grounding for Engineer A's potential personal action as a concerned citizen — beyond professional obligations — to alert Owner Y, regulatory bodies, or the public about observed safety hazards on adjacent property
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (accumulated through BER case decisions)
Framework for Engineer Conscientious Refusal and Scope-of-Responsibility Limits
an engineer cannot be expected to take on personal or professional responsibility for each and every potential health and safety risk they may be exposed to during the course of a day, which are essentially unrelated to the services for which the engineer is being professionally engaged
this is a personal judgment and does not constitute an ethical obligation that can be imposed on Engineer A to take immediate or direct action
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining the limits of Engineer A's obligations
Applied by the Board to reason that Engineer A cannot be ethically compelled to take direct action on a safety concern outside their professional scope, distinguishing permissible personal judgment from mandatory ethical obligation
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer A when deciding whether and how to act on observed safety issues on adjacent property
Governs Engineer A's duty to escalate observed safety concerns beyond the immediate client relationship to Owner Y, regulatory authorities, or the public, even absent a direct contractual relationship with the adjacent property owner
Professional Norms on Engineer Duty to Escalate Public Safety Concerns
The duty to hold paramount the public health, safety, and welfare is among the most basic and fundamental obligations to which an engineer is required to adhere.
While the obligation is an important and essential one, it is not without some limits with regard to the role of the engineer in society generally.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's obligations regarding adjacent construction site hazards
The Board applies the professional norm that engineers have a paramount duty to protect public health and safety, while also recognizing limits on that duty when the safety concern falls outside the engineer's professional scope of responsibility
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
Engineer A in determining how to act when no direct relationship exists with Owner Y or the adjacent subcontractor
Provides guidance on Engineer A's obligations when there is no direct client relationship through which to channel a safety concern — analogous to situations where a safety recommendation cannot be made to a responsible party in the normal chain of command
Engineer A Citizen Action Employer Concurrence Boundary Owner Y Advocacy
Engineer A may wish to act as a concerned citizen to alert Owner Y directly; this citizen-role action is constrained by the faithful agent duty to ES Consulting as employer
Employer Faithful Agent Citizen Action Boundary Constraint
If Engineer A considers taking additional advocacy actions as a private citizen — such as directly contacting Owner Y, regulatory authorities, or media — beyond formal professional escalation through ES Consulting, Engineer A is constrained to obtain ES Consulting's concurrence before taking public actions that could adversely affect ES Consulting's client relationships or business interests.
NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions; BER case precedent on citizen-role advocacy boundary
After fulfilling formal professional reporting obligations through ES Consulting
Engineer A Citizen Action Stakeholder Consideration Owner Y Adjacent Safety
Engineer A's potential citizen-role action to alert Owner Y must be weighed against multi-stakeholder impacts including employer business interests
Citizen Action Stakeholder Consideration Constraint
If Engineer A proceeds with citizen-role advocacy regarding the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property — beyond formal professional escalation — Engineer A is constrained to carefully consider the interests of all affected stakeholders, including ES Consulting's business interests, Client X's interests, Owner Y's interests, and the public interest, before taking unilateral action.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case precedent on citizen action and stakeholder consideration
If and when Engineer A considers citizen-role advocacy beyond professional escalation
Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
Engineer A Client Loyalty Faithful Agent Boundary Owner Y Safety Priority
Engineer A's primary engagement is with Client X, but the observation of safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property triggers a public safety obligation that supersedes the scope and loyalty constraints of the Client X engagement
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
Engineer A's faithful agent duty to Client X is constrained by the paramount obligation to protect public safety — Engineer A cannot allow loyalty to Client X or the scope of the Client X engagement to override the obligation to respond to observed safety hazards on Owner Y's adjacent property.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; faithful agent provisions; BER precedent on public safety primacy
Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
Throughout the construction observation engagement for Client X
Engineer A Conditional Direct Written Notification Owner Y
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize the conditional obligation to notify Owner Y directly and in writing of the observed safety issues if ES Consulting and Client X fail to take adequate action, ensuring that Owner Y has documented, actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures.
Owner Y is the adjacent property owner with no direct relationship to Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X, who may be unaware of the safety risks from the subcontractor's work
Recognition that direct written notification to Owner Y is required if the employer chain fails to adequately address the safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
Engineer A Corrective Action Follow-Through Monitoring Owner Y
Corrective Action Follow-Through Monitoring After Verbal Out-of-Scope Report Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize the continuing professional obligation to monitor whether ES Consulting and Client X take adequate corrective action regarding the Owner Y safety issues within a reasonable period, and to assess whether the absence of corrective action triggers an independent obligation to escalate to Owner Y or regulatory authorities.
After reporting to ES Consulting, Engineer A must assess whether the employer chain's response is adequate or whether independent escalation to Owner Y or authorities is required
Recognition that reporting to ES Consulting does not discharge the full obligation — Engineer A must monitor the adequacy of the response and escalate if ES Consulting and Client X fail to act
Engineer A Employer Intermediary Channeling Owner Y Safety Escalation
No direct relationship exists between any party in the engagement and Owner Y; ES Consulting is the appropriate first point of escalation as employer and prime consultant
No-Relationship Third-Party Safety Escalation Channeling Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to channel the observed safety concern regarding Owner Y's adjacent property through ES Consulting as the employer and prime consultant before taking any direct action toward Owner Y, given the complete absence of any direct relationship between Engineer A, ES Consulting, Client X, and Owner Y.
NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions; BER case precedent on employer intermediary role
Immediately upon observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary Client X Owner Y Safety
Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to correctly identify that the faithful agent duty to Client X does not require suppression of the Owner Y safety observation, and that the faithful agent role is fulfilled by honestly advising ES Consulting and Client X of the adverse findings while retaining the obligation to ensure Owner Y's safety is addressed.
Engineer A must navigate the tension between faithful agent duty to Client X and the paramount safety disclosure obligation to Owner Y as an unrelated third party
Recognition that faithful agent duty to Client X does not bar disclosure of Owner Y safety issues and does not require Engineer A to ignore the adjacent property safety hazard
Engineer A Faithful Agent Client X Boundary Owner Y Safety Scope
Engineer A must recognize that the faithful agent duty to Client X does not require Engineer A to take on unlimited personal safety accountability for all observed hazards on adjacent properties, and that the faithful agent role is bounded by the professional scope of responsibility
Engineer A performing construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting while observing out-of-scope safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
BER guidance that Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client X does not extend to mandatory action on out-of-scope adjacent property safety observations
Engineer A Faithful Agent Priority Sequencing Client X Owner Y
Faithful Agent Priority Sequencing Before External Escalation Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to correctly sequence the notification obligations — advising ES Consulting and Client X (faithful agent duty) before or in conjunction with directly contacting Owner Y or external regulatory authorities — recognizing that the faithful agent obligation is fulfilled first without diminishing the subsequent obligation to ensure Owner Y's safety.
Engineer A must balance faithful agent duty to Client X with the safety disclosure obligation to Owner Y as an unrelated adjacent third party
Recognition that the faithful agent duty to Client X through ES Consulting must be honored in the escalation sequence before independent direct contact with Owner Y
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Calibration Owner Y Adjacent Safety Risk
The observed safety issues are described as 'potential' — not confirmed imminent — requiring proportionate rather than full-bore multi-authority escalation as the initial response
Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence and Employment Context Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to calibrate the scope, urgency, and escalation pathway of the response to the observed potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property to the imminence and severity of the identified risk — beginning with employer notification and proceeding to direct owner notification or regulatory escalation only if the risk is sufficiently imminent or if ES Consulting fails to act adequately.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER graduated escalation precedent
From the moment of observation through resolution of the safety concern
Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Calibration Owner Y
Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to distinguish between the observed Owner Y safety issues being imminent and widespread — requiring a full-bore multi-authority campaign — versus real but non-imminent — requiring proportionate graduated escalation — and to calibrate the scope and urgency of the response accordingly.
Engineer A must assess the imminence of the safety risk from the subcontractor's work on Owner Y's adjacent property to determine the appropriate escalation scope
Assessment of whether the observed subcontractor safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property constitute an imminent risk requiring immediate multi-authority escalation or a non-imminent risk requiring graduated response
Engineer A Incidental Adjacent Property Safety Observation
Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize, while performing contracted construction observation services for Client X, that conditions observed on the adjacent Owner Y property constitute a potential safety deficiency triggering professional disclosure obligations despite falling outside the contracted scope.
Engineer A is performing construction observation for Client X through ES Consulting and incidentally observes safety issues on adjacent property belonging to Owner Y
Observation of potential safety issues from subcontractor work on adjacent Owner Y property during performance of construction observation services for Client X
During the performance of the construction observation services for Client X, Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y
Engineer A Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Owner Y Adjacent Property
Engineer A must recognize, upon incidental observation while performing construction observation services for Client X, that the subcontractor work on Owner Y's adjacent property raises potential safety issues — correctly classifying the observed condition as a safety deficiency even though it falls outside the contracted scope
Engineer A observes potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property while performing contracted construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting
Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues from subcontractor work on Owner Y's adjacent property during contracted construction observation for Client X
Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues in connection with the adjacent construction project might cause Engineer A to decide that the matter requires some level of response on Engineer A's part
Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification Owner Y Before Regulatory Escalation
New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that Owner Y — as the property owner most immediately able to take protective action — should be notified of the safety concerns before or in conjunction with notifying governmental officials, so that Owner Y is not blindsided by regulatory intervention without prior notice.
Owner Y is the adjacent property owner who may be unaware of the safety risks from the subcontractor's work and has the most immediate ability to take protective measures
Recognition that Owner Y's priority notification before regulatory escalation is appropriate given Owner Y's immediate ability to take protective measures regarding the subcontractor's work on the adjacent property
Engineer A No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Safety Disclosure Duty Recognition Owner Y
No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Safety Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
Engineer A must recognize that the complete absence of any contractual, professional, or prior relationship with Owner Y does not automatically extinguish a safety disclosure duty, but that the professional scope of responsibility boundary — not the relational nexus — is the key determinant of whether a mandatory obligation arises in this case
Engineer A has no direct relationship with Owner Y, whose adjacent property is the site of the observed safety issues
BER analysis of whether Engineer A's lack of relationship with Owner Y affects the safety disclosure obligation
the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
Engineer A No-Nexus Third-Party Duty Recognition Owner Y
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the complete absence of any contractual or professional relationship with Owner Y does not extinguish the professional duty to disclose observed safety hazards affecting Owner Y's property, because the paramount duty to public safety creates that obligation regardless of relational nexus.
Owner Y is explicitly identified as a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, nor Client X has any direct relationship
Recognition that the safety disclosure duty to Owner Y exists despite no direct relationship between Engineer A, ES Consulting, Client X, and Owner Y
Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Site Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A observes potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent construction site while lawfully present performing Client X construction observation services
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from treating the adjacent property observation as entirely outside professional responsibility; the ethical constraint requires disclosure of the observed potential safety issues through appropriate channels, prohibiting silence on the grounds of scope limitation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.1, I.4; Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Disclosure Constraint
Upon observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
Engineer A Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Judgment Calibration
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Judgment Calibration Capability
Engineer A must exercise personal judgment to determine whether and how to respond to observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, recognizing that no mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action exists, and that a permissible response includes escalating to ES Consulting superiors
Engineer A observes potential safety issues from subcontractor work on Owner Y's adjacent property while performing construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting
Decision-making about whether to bring observed adjacent-property safety issues to the attention of ES Consulting and Client X
the facts in the present case suggest that Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues in connection with the adjacent construction project might cause Engineer A to decide that the matter requires some level of response on Engineer A's part
in the Board of Ethical Review's opinion, this is a personal judgment and does not constitute an ethical obligation that can be imposed on Engineer A to take immediate or direct action
Engineer A Potential Risk Written Notification Owner Y Adjacent Property
The safety issues are 'potential' rather than confirmed imminent; written notification is required but full investigation is not mandated by the ethical constraint
Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Without Investigation Constraint
Engineer A and ES Consulting are constrained to advise the appropriate party — at minimum Owner Y or the responsible authority — in writing of the observed potential safety risk on the adjacent property, while not being obligated to investigate the risk further or recommend specific mitigation alternatives beyond the scope of the original engagement.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4, III.1.b; BER case precedent on potential safety risk notification
Upon escalation of the observed safety concern through ES Consulting
Engineer A Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Nexus Determination
Engineer A must correctly determine that the observed safety hazard on Owner Y's adjacent property falls outside Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility — not merely outside the contractual scope of work — and that this is the key factual distinction determining that no mandatory safety disclosure obligation arises
Engineer A observes potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property while contracted for construction observation on Client X's property
Recognition that construction observation services for Client X do not extend professional scope of responsibility to adjacent Owner Y's property
Engineer A Proportionality Calibration Adjacent Non-Imminent vs Imminent Owner Y Risk
The observed safety issues are described as 'potential' — the proportionality constraint requires calibrated rather than maximum-intensity response as the initial step
Proportionality Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to calibrate the response to the observed potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property proportionately to the imminence and severity of the risk — a potential but unconfirmed risk requires graduated escalation beginning with employer notification, not immediate full-bore multi-authority mobilization, unless the risk is confirmed as imminent and widespread.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER proportionality precedent contrasting imminent and non-imminent structural risks
From observation through resolution of the safety concern
Engineer A Risk Imminence Proportional Escalation Owner Y Safety
Risk Imminence and Breadth Calibrated Escalation Scope Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to calibrate the scope, intensity, and urgency of the escalation response to the Owner Y safety issues proportionately to the assessed imminence and breadth of the danger — distinguishing between situations requiring immediate multi-authority escalation versus graduated, proportionate response.
Engineer A must determine the appropriate level of escalation urgency for the observed safety issues on Owner Y's property, which may range from non-imminent to imminent depending on the nature of the subcontractor's work
Calibration of the escalation response to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property based on the assessed imminence and severity of the risk
Engineer A Scope Non-Excuse Adjacent Property Owner Y Safety Observation
Engineer A observes potential safety issues on adjacent property belonging to Owner Y while performing in-scope construction observation for Client X; no contractual relationship exists with Owner Y
Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation for Known Safety Risk Constraint
Engineer A's contractual scope of construction observation services for Client X does not excuse Engineer A from recognizing and responding to the potential safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property, even though Owner Y is entirely outside the scope of the engagement.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case precedent on scope limitation and safety observation
During the performance of construction observation services for Client X
Engineer A Scope Non-Excuse Adjacent Safety Recognition
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the contractual scope of construction observation services for Client X does not excuse inaction upon observing potential safety issues on the adjacent Owner Y property, because the paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare overrides scope-of-work constraints.
Engineer A's contracted scope covers only Client X's project, yet safety issues are observed on adjacent Owner Y property
Recognition that the construction observation scope for Client X does not limit the professional obligation triggered by observing safety hazards on Owner Y's adjacent property
Engineer A Sub-Consultant Employer-Chain Escalation Sequencing
Sub-Consultant Employer-Chain Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to correctly sequence the safety escalation — reporting first to ES Consulting as the employing prime consultant, then allowing ES Consulting to coordinate with Client X, and only conditionally escalating to Owner Y or regulatory authorities if the employer chain fails to take adequate action.
Engineer A is a sub-consultant employed through ES Consulting as prime, performing services for Client X, with Owner Y as an unrelated adjacent third party
Navigation of the three-tier escalation chain (Engineer A → ES Consulting → Client X → Owner Y/authorities) arising from the sub-consultant employment structure
Engineer A Sub-Consultant Employer-Chain Safety Escalation Sequencing ES Consulting Owner Y
If Engineer A decides to respond to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, Engineer A must correctly sequence the escalation — first to ES Consulting superiors and Client X — before any direct notification to Owner Y or regulatory authorities
Engineer A as sub-consultant through ES Consulting observing out-of-scope safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
BER guidance that one permissible response is bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X to explore informing appropriate responsible parties on the adjacent site
One potential response could include bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X to explore informing appropriate responsible parties on the adjacent site (e.g., project superintendent), particularly if the safety issues involved could cause some disruption and have some bearing on the progress of the work on Client X's property
Engineer A – Client X Active Construction Observation Engagement
Throughout the construction observation services engagement
Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
Professional relationship between Engineer A / ES Consulting and Client X
Completion or termination of the construction observation engagement
Engagement of ES Consulting by Client X for construction observation services
Engineer A's engagement by ES Consulting starts construction observation services for Client X
Engineer A is engaged by ES Consulting to perform construction observation services for Client X on a specific project. During the performance of those services, Engineer A observes potential safety issues...
Engineer A's engagement by ES Consulting
construction observation services for Client X
Entity1 and Entity2 start at the same time, Entity1 ends first
Engineer A's observation of safety issues during construction observation services for Client X
During the performance of the construction observation services for Client X, Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y.
Engineer A's observation of safety issues
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Escalate Internally to ES Consulting and Client X Superiors
May create friction or complexity in the professional relationship if superiors disagree on the appropriate response
Raising the matter could expand ES Consulting's or Client X's perceived responsibility for the adjacent site
Superiors may choose to take no action, leaving the safety risk unaddressed
Duty of fidelity to ES Consulting by escalating rather than acting unilaterally outside scope
Duty to inform employer of relevant site conditions that may affect the project
Partial fulfillment of NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety through internal notification
Reasonable response to public safety concern within the bounds of professional scope
Duty to inform employer of matters affecting the project and public safety
NSPE Code: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
Personal conscience as a guide to action beyond formal obligation
Proportionate and reasonable professional response to identified risks
Alert appropriate superiors within the existing professional relationship structure so that informed parties can decide whether to notify responsible parties on the adjacent site, while Engineer A avoids direct personal exposure to liability beyond the scope of engagement
Engineering judgment to assess whether the adjacent risk could affect Client X's project
Organizational awareness to identify appropriate superiors within ES Consulting and Client X
Professional communication skills to articulate the nature and severity of the observed safety risk
After observing the adjacent safety issues, as a potential immediate response
Engineer A chooses to bring the observed adjacent safety issues to the attention of superiors within ES Consulting and to Client X, particularly framing the concern around the potential disruption the adjacent safety issues could cause to Client X's project progress. The Board identifies this as one potential and reasonable response available to Engineer A.
Escalate Internally to ES Consulting and Client X Superiors (Action 4) → Take Direct Action with Adjacent Site Parties (Action 5)
Engineer A chooses to bring the observed adjacent safety issues to the attention of superiors... Engineer A chooses to directly contact responsible parties on the adjacent site, such as the project [manager or owner]
If internal escalation had resulted in adequate organizational action resolving the hazard, direct action by Engineer A might not be necessary; if superiors had explicitly prohibited contact, Engineer A would face a higher-order ethical conflict
Continued existence of the unresolved safety hazard
Engineer A's ongoing professional obligation under NSPE Code to protect public safety
Internal escalation having been completed or attempted (Action 4)
Superiors either authorizing direct contact or failing to act adequately
Engineer A (primary); ES Consulting superiors (shared, for failing to act after receiving internal report)
Completed internal escalation + inadequate organizational response + persistent hazard + professional duty = justified direct external action
Engineer is placed in possession of knowledge about financial misconduct; silence becomes complicity; reporting obligation is activated
BER Case 82-5 (1982), referenced in discussion section
In BER Case 82-5, excessive costs are incurred within a defense industry context, constituting an exogenous financial and ethical condition that the unnamed engineer discovers and must decide how to address.
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property
Engineer A in determining professional obligations toward Owner Y and the public
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations when observing safety hazards on adjacent property with no direct client relationship — specifically Fundamental Canon I (hold paramount public safety) and related Rules of Practice
The absence of a direct relationship creates a structural gap between Engineer A's ethical impulse to act and their legal/contractual authority to do so; this gap is the central tension of the case
Pre-existing condition at the time Engineer A is engaged
It is a structural fact of the situation that Engineer A, ES Consulting, and Client X have no direct contractual or professional relationship with Owner Y. This absence of relationship is an exogenous condition that shapes the ethical and legal parameters of the scenario.
Creating an ethical decision point regarding whether to act on safety concerns outside the scope of engagement
Potential exposure to professional liability if action is taken or withheld
Awareness of public safety conditions proximate to the project site
Exercise of professional engineering judgment
Engineers hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
NSPE Code: Engineers' unique qualifications permit identification of situations raising serious risks
Professional vigilance as a component of engineering practice
Identify and assess conditions that may affect the safety of the overall construction environment, including areas proximate to Client X's project
Ability to assess subcontractor work practices for safety compliance
Engineering expertise in construction safety
Professional judgment to distinguish significant risks from ordinary site conditions
Engineer A, while performing construction observation for Client X, directs professional attention to the adjacent property and recognizes potential safety issues associated with a subcontractor's work for Owner Y. This constitutes a volitional act of professional recognition and assessment, not merely passive perception.
Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Action Engineer A Owner Y
Engineer A observed potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property while performing construction observation for Client X through ES Consulting; the Board determined this does not generate a mandatory ethical obligation to act directly
Engineer A is not subject to a mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action upon observing potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent construction site, because the observed condition falls entirely outside Engineer A's contracted professional scope of responsibility and Engineer A has no direct professional relationship with Owner Y; any responsive action is a matter of personal judgment and personal conscience.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion; BER Case No. 82-5 (personal conscience right vs. mandatory duty)
However, in the Board of Ethical Review's opinion, this is a personal judgment and does not constitute an ethical obligation that can be imposed on Engineer A to take immediate or direct action.
During Engineer A's construction observation engagement for Client X
To do otherwise would make Engineer A accountable for a wide range of public duties and responsibilities that are beyond the bounds of reason.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Employer-Channeled Response Engineer A ES Consulting Client X Owner Y
Engineer A observed potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent construction site; the Board identified employer-channeled escalation as one permissible response pathway
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Employer-Channeled Response Permissibility Constraint
If Engineer A chooses to respond to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, Engineer A is constrained to channel that response through ES Consulting superiors and Client X as the appropriate intermediaries — exploring notification of responsible parties on the adjacent site such as the project superintendent — particularly where the safety issues could have bearing on the progress of work on Client X's property; this pathway is permissible but not mandatory.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion; NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions
One potential response could include bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X to explore informing appropriate responsible parties on the adjacent site (e.g., project superintendent), particularly if the safety issues involved could cause some disruption and have some bearing on the progress of the work on Client X's property.
Owner Y Adjacent Third-Party Property Owner
{'property_relationship': "Adjacent to Client X's project site", 'contractual_nexus': 'None with Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X', 'safety_risk_source': "Subcontractor performing work on Owner Y's project"}
Owner of adjacent property where a subcontractor is performing work that raises potential safety issues observed by Engineer A; has no direct relationship with Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X
{'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'Client X'}
{'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'ES Consulting'}
{'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'property_adjacent_to', 'target': 'Client X project site'}
Adjacent Third-Party Property Owner Stakeholder
a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y
Perform Construction Observation Services
Exposure to conditions and hazards outside the defined scope of services
Potential observation of issues on adjacent properties creating secondary ethical obligations
Contractual duty to perform professional services for Client X
Duty of fidelity to employer ES Consulting
Professional duty of competence in executing assigned engineering services
Faithful service to clients within defined scope
Fulfill contractual professional obligations to ES Consulting and Client X by observing construction activities and ensuring compliance with project requirements
Engineering judgment regarding site conditions
Knowledge of construction safety standards
At the outset of the engagement, prior to observing the adjacent safety issue
Engineer A actively undertakes construction observation services on behalf of ES Consulting for Client X, placing himself physically on or near the project site. This is a deliberate professional engagement that creates the conditions under which the adjacent safety issue is observed.
Perform Construction Observation Services (Action 1) → Safety Issue Observed by Engineer (Event 2)
Engineer A actively undertakes construction observation services... while performing construction observation for Client X, directs professional attention to adjacent safety issues
Perform Construction Observation Services (Action 1)
Without the construction observation assignment, Engineer A would not have been positioned to observe the adjacent hazard; the hazard would have remained unobserved by this engineer
Safety Issue Observed by Engineer (Event 2)
Adjacent hazard already existing independently (Event 1)
Engineer A physically present on or near the construction site
Engineer A's professional training enabling hazard recognition
Scope of observation work placing Engineer A in proximity to adjacent site
Physical presence + professional competence + pre-existing hazard = observation of safety issue
The ethical analysis is anchored to an established body of professional precedent; Engineer A's situation is no longer purely novel but is situated within a decades-long evolution of professional ethical standards
Referenced during ethical analysis; cases originate from 1965 (BER 65-12) through 1988 (BER 88-6)
A body of prior Board of Ethical Review (BER) case decisions spanning from 1965 to 1988 becomes relevant to the analysis of Engineer A's situation, providing an established ethical framework against which the present scenario is evaluated.
A body of prior Board of Ethical Review (BER) case decisions spanning from 1965 to 1988 becomes relevant... In BER Case 65-12, a group of engineers collectively decided to refuse participation... In BER Case 82-5, an engineer... documented and reported... In BER Case 88-6, the city engineer/director of public works, upon noticing overflow capacity problems [reported internally]
Prior BER Precedents Applicable (Event 4)
Without applicable BER precedents, Engineer A's ethical reasoning would rest solely on general Code provisions, potentially producing greater uncertainty; precedents strengthen the case that inaction is ethically impermissible
Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk (Action 3), informed ethical resolution
Analogous factual circumstances between precedents and the current situation
Engineer A's or ES Consulting's access to and awareness of these precedents
Existence of BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6 as established precedents
NSPE Code provisions underlying the precedent decisions remaining in force
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (precedent-setting); Engineer A (applying precedents)
Applicable precedents + analogous facts + engineer's awareness = informed ethical framework sufficient to guide decision away from inaction
Prior BER Precedents Applicable (Event 4) → Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk (Action 3) — informed ethical resolution
Professional Competence Invoked as Basis for Safety Identification Duty
Professional expertise as basis for public safety duty
Scope-Bounded Public Safety Obligation Principle
Engineers' unique education, experience, and training give them qualifications that permit them to identify situations and circumstances raising serious risks — this competence is the foundation for why the public safety obligation falls on engineers specifically.
Professional competence is not merely a duty to perform work adequately but also the source of the engineer's special obligation to identify and respond to safety risks that others may not be equipped to recognize.
Because of their education, experience, and training, engineers possess unique qualifications which often permit them to identify situations and circumstances that may raise serious risks.
Competence creates the capacity and therefore the responsibility to identify risks, but the scope of the resulting obligation is bounded by the engineer's professional engagement.
Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Activation Engineer A Owner Y Adjacent Property
The Board distinguished Engineer A's case from BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6 on the ground that the observed safety condition was not within Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional Ethics Bodies
Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Activation Constraint
The Board is constrained to recognize that the absence of a direct professional scope of responsibility for Owner Y's adjacent property is the key factual determinant distinguishing Engineer A's case from prior BER cases that generated mandatory safety escalation obligations — prohibiting the application of mandatory escalation precedents from cases involving in-scope safety hazards to Engineer A's out-of-scope adjacent property observation.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion; BER Case Nos. 65-12, 82-5, 88-6 (distinguished)
The facts in the present case are somewhat different from the earlier cited cases, notably because the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A.
Throughout the Board's ethical review of Engineer A's situation
The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases.
Engineer A observes potential safety issues
Engineer A and ES Consulting in deliberating on appropriate response to observed safety issues
Guides Engineer A in weighing competing obligations — loyalty to Client X and ES Consulting versus the paramount duty to protect public safety — when deciding whether and how to act on observed hazards on adjacent property
Public Safety Paramount Obligation Scope Limits Engineer A General Principle
The Board acknowledged the fundamental nature of the public safety obligation while simultaneously establishing that it has limits, particularly with respect to out-of-scope incidental observations
Professional Ethics Bodies / Engineering Profession
Unlimited Personal Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Constraint
While the obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental, it is not without limits with regard to the engineer's role in society generally — ethics bodies are constrained from treating this paramount obligation as generating unlimited personal and professional accountability for every safety risk an engineer may incidentally observe during professional practice.
NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion
General principle applicable across all engineering practice contexts
While in many instances, the obligation is often clear and obvious, in other instances, there could be an obligation on the part of the engineer to balance competing or concurrent concerns.
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
At what point does a 'potential' safety issue become sufficiently certain or severe that Engineer A's obligation escalates from internal reporting to direct notification of Owner Y or regulatory authorities, and who bears responsibility for making that determination?
If ES Consulting receives Engineer A's internal report but takes no action to notify Owner Y or the relevant subcontractor, does Engineer A then acquire an independent obligation to escalate further, and does supervisory inaction create complicity for Engineer A as well as ES Consulting?
Does Engineer A's professional competence in construction observation create a heightened duty of care toward third parties who are foreseeably endangered by conditions Engineer A is uniquely positioned to identify, even when those parties fall entirely outside the contractual scope of engagement?
What documentation obligations, if any, does Engineer A have regarding the observed adjacent safety issue — for instance, should the observation be recorded in writing to protect Engineer A, ES Consulting, and Client X from future liability if the hazard materializes into harm?
Does the principle that public welfare is paramount conflict with the scope-bounded public safety obligation when Engineer A's contractual role with Client X provides no mandate to surveil or report on adjacent properties — and if so, which principle should govern?
How should Engineer A reconcile the faithful agent obligation owed to Client X — which demands focused, in-scope performance — against the proactive risk disclosure principle that appears to require Engineer A to act on safety knowledge gained incidentally while serving that client?
Does the principle that out-of-scope safety observation warrants only a discretionary response conflict with the do-no-harm obligation, given that choosing not to act on observed safety knowledge could foreseeably contribute to injury or death on the adjacent site?
Does the principle of contextual calibration of public safety obligations across BER precedents — which treats whistleblowing as a personal conscience right rather than a mandatory duty — undermine the principle that third-party affected parties have a direct notification obligation owed to them, particularly when Owner Y has no other means of learning about the hazard?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's categorical duty to hold public safety paramount under NSPE Code Section I.1 override the scope-of-work boundary that limits Engineer A's contractual obligations to Client X, such that Engineer A has an unconditional duty to notify Owner Y directly regardless of any employer intermediary process?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's conclusion that Engineer A need only escalate internally to ES Consulting — without any obligation to notify Owner Y or the subcontractor directly — produce the best expected outcome for all affected parties, including workers on the adjacent site, when weighed against the risk that ES Consulting may fail to act on the information in a timely manner?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does an engineer of genuine professional integrity — one who has incidentally observed a potential safety hazard on an adjacent site — demonstrate the virtues of courage, prudence, and civic responsibility by limiting their response to internal escalation, or does authentic professional character demand that Engineer A take further proactive steps to ensure Owner Y and the affected subcontractor workers are actually protected?
From a deontological perspective, does the Board's graduated imminence framework — requiring more aggressive escalation only when danger is imminent — represent a principled moral distinction grounded in the nature of duty itself, or does it impermissibly subordinate the categorical duty to protect public safety to a consequentialist calculation about the probability and timing of harm?
What if ES Consulting, after being informed by Engineer A of the adjacent site safety hazard, chose to take no action — either out of reluctance to interfere with a project outside their contractual scope or for business relationship reasons — would Engineer A then acquire a direct ethical obligation to notify Owner Y or the relevant regulatory authority, and at what point does supervisory inaction transform Engineer A's permissible discretionary action into a mandatory duty?
What if the potential safety issue observed by Engineer A on the adjacent Owner Y site had been assessed as posing imminent danger to workers rather than a non-imminent risk — would the Board's conclusion change to require Engineer A to bypass ES Consulting and notify Owner Y, the subcontractor, or a regulatory authority directly, and does this scenario reveal that the Board's ethical framework is fundamentally consequentialist rather than deontological in its treatment of public safety obligations?
What if Engineer A had not been performing construction observation services for Client X at all, but had instead observed the same adjacent safety hazard on Owner Y's property purely as a private citizen passing by — would Engineer A's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code be materially different, and does this comparison reveal whether the Board's conclusion rests on Engineer A's professional role and competence or merely on the contractual scope of the engagement?
What if Engineer A had previously worked on a project for Owner Y and retained some residual professional familiarity with Owner Y's operations — would the existence of even a prior, now-concluded relationship have been sufficient to trigger a direct notification obligation to Owner Y under the Board's no-nexus analysis, and does this counterfactual expose an arbitrary boundary in the Board's reliance on the absence of any direct relationship as a limiting principle?
Refuse Participation in Unsafe Product Production
Loss of employment as a foreseeable and acknowledged consequence
Potential that the product would be produced regardless by other engineers willing to participate
Duty of professional integrity and refusal to participate in unsafe practices
NSPE Code: Holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
Right to maintain professional position based on sincere safety concerns
Engineers are ethically justified in refusing to participate in activities they believe to be unsafe
Professional integrity and right of conscience
Prevent the production of an unsafe product and uphold professional integrity by refusing to participate in activities the engineers believed posed a safety risk, even at the cost of employment
Collective professional courage to act despite employment risk
Engineering expertise to assess product safety
Professional judgment to form and maintain a sincere safety-based position
BER Case 65-12 (1965), cited as precedent in the Discussion
Contractual and employment obligations to the employer
Duty of fidelity to employer to the extent that refusal disrupted production
In BER Case 65-12, a group of engineers collectively decided to refuse participation in the processing or production of a product they believed to be unsafe, accepting the likely consequence of job loss rather than compromise their professional safety obligations.
BER Case 82-5, unnamed, defense industry firm employee
Employer might reject the reports and take no action
Risk of professional retaliation or job loss if the employer viewed the reporting as disruptive
Duty to inform employer of improper conduct affecting the project
Ethical right to act on personal conscience regarding public concerns
Professional obligation to document and report concerns through appropriate internal channels
Duty to report improper conduct affecting public funds
Internal escalation as the appropriate first step in whistleblowing
Personal conscience as a guide to action on public concerns
Bring improper subcontractor conduct, excessive costs and time delays, to the employer's attention in order to prompt corrective action and ensure responsible use of public funds
Ability to document and analyze subcontractor costs and time delays
Communication skills to report findings to employer effectively
Professional judgment to identify improper conduct
BER Case 82-5 (1982), cited as precedent in the Discussion
In BER Case 82-5, an engineer employed by a defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, initiating an internal whistleblowing process regarding what he believed to be improper contractor conduct.
Report Overflow Capacity Problems Internally
City administrator and council might ignore or suppress the concern
Failure to report to state authorities as legally required could make the engineer complicit in a violation
Risk of being relieved of responsibility for the matter if superiors viewed the reporting as disruptive
Initial duty to raise the safety and legal compliance concern with internal authorities
Partial fulfillment of duty to inform responsible parties of the regulatory violation
Duty to escalate when internal channels fail to address a serious ongoing violation
Obligation to report legal violations to appropriate authorities
City Engineer / Director of Public Works
Alert city leadership to the overflow capacity problems through internal channels, seeking to prompt corrective action while maintaining the working relationship with the city administrator and council
Engineering expertise in water pollution control and overflow capacity assessment
Knowledge of applicable state regulatory reporting requirements
Professional judgment to identify the appropriate 'proper authority' for escalation
BER Case 88-6 (1988), initial reporting phase, cited as precedent in the Discussion
Duty to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations
Legal and professional obligation to report the overflow problem to state water pollution control authorities
NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare by not escalating to proper authorities
In BER Case 88-6, the city engineer/director of public works, upon noticing overflow capacity problems required to be reported to state water pollution control authorities, chose to report the problem privately to members of the city council and discuss it with the city administrator, rather than immediately escalating to state authorities.
Engineer A transitions from a state of potential ignorance to a state of actual knowledge; once observed, inaction becomes a deliberate choice with ethical consequences rather than a passive omission
During construction observation services, upon visual or situational encounter with adjacent site
Engineer A perceives and recognizes the potential safety issues on the adjacent property during the course of performing construction observation services. This is the moment of awareness that transforms an external condition into an ethical situation requiring a response.
Safety Issue Observed by Engineer (Event 2) → Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk (Action 3)
Engineer A perceives and recognizes the potential safety issues on the adjacent property... Engineer A faces and must resolve the decision of whether to take no action regarding the observed safety issue
If Engineer A had not observed the hazard, no decision about ignoring it would arise; the ethical dilemma is entirely contingent on observation
Engineer A having observed and recognized the hazard (Event 2)
Engineer A's awareness of professional ethical obligations under NSPE Code
Existence of prior BER precedents creating interpretive context (Event 4)
No direct contractual relationship with Owner Y (Event 3)
Observation of hazard + professional ethical duty + absence of direct relationship = forced ethical decision point requiring resolution
System failure condition triggers immediate public safety obligations that override normal administrative hierarchies; the City Engineer's role as public safety guardian is activated
BER Case 88-6 (1988), referenced in discussion section
In BER Case 88-6, a sewage or public works system reaches or exceeds its overflow capacity, creating a public health and safety condition that the City Engineer / Director of Public Works must address through internal reporting.
Take Direct Action with Adjacent Site Parties
Could set a precedent for Engineer A being held accountable for a wide range of public duties beyond reasonable bounds
Possible disruption to the professional relationship with Client X if the action is perceived as exceeding the mandate
Potential exposure of Engineer A and ES Consulting to professional liability for actions taken outside the scope of engagement
Risk of overstepping professional authority and creating legal complications
NSPE Code: Holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the most direct manner possible
Personal conscience obligation to prevent foreseeable harm when the engineer possesses unique knowledge of the risk
Engineers' unique qualifications create heightened awareness of safety risks
Personal conscience as a guide to action beyond formal obligation (per BER Case 82-5)
Directly alert the responsible parties on the adjacent site to the observed safety risk in order to prevent harm to workers or the public, acting on the fundamental engineering duty to protect public safety regardless of contractual scope
Communication skills to engage with an unknown project superintendent or site manager effectively
Engineering expertise to credibly communicate the nature and severity of the safety risk to adjacent site parties
Professional judgment to assess the immediacy and severity of the risk warranting direct intervention
After observing the adjacent safety issues, as an alternative immediate response
Duty of fidelity to ES Consulting by acting unilaterally without internal authorization
Duty to operate within the defined scope of professional engagement
Obligation to avoid assuming unauthorized professional responsibility that could expose Engineer A and ES Consulting to unlimited liability
Engineer A chooses to directly contact responsible parties on the adjacent site, such as the project superintendent for Owner Y's project, to notify them of the observed safety issues, bypassing internal escalation and acting outside the formal scope of the engagement. The Board addresses this option but does not endorse it as an ethical obligation.
Unlimited Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Engineer A Adjacent Property
Engineer A observed potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent construction site while performing construction observation services for Client X; the Board must determine whether a mandatory ethical obligation arises from this out-of-scope observation
The Board of Ethical Review is constrained from imposing upon Engineer A a mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action regarding every potential safety risk observed on adjacent property during the course of professional engagement with Client X, because such imposition would create unlimited personal and professional liability beyond the bounds of reason.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion; BER Case precedent on scope of professional safety obligations
As a general rule, an engineer cannot be expected to take on personal or professional responsibility for each and every potential health and safety risk they may be exposed to during the course of a day, which are essentially unrelated to the services for which the engineer is being professionally engaged.
Throughout Engineer A's professional engagement with Client X and ES Consulting
To impose such a responsibility upon an engineer could thrust the engineer into a never-ending scope of activities that are beyond what is reasonable, and could expose the engineer to unlimited personal and professional liability.
Engineers are placed in a position where continued participation in production would implicate them in unsafe outcomes; refusal becomes an ethical imperative
BER Case 65-12 (1965), referenced in discussion section
In BER Case 65-12, conditions existed within a manufacturing or production environment that created unsafe product outcomes, prompting a group of engineers to refuse participation. The unsafe conditions are the exogenous trigger for the engineers' ethical response.
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Whistleblowing and Conscientious Objection
if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to 'blow the whistle' to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
the ethical duty or right of the engineer became a matter of personal conscience
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing BER Cases 65-12 and 82-5 and their applicability to Engineer A
Applied to distinguish between an engineer's ethical right versus ethical obligation to blow the whistle on unsafe or improper employer conduct, and the personal consequences (e.g., employment loss) that may follow
all prior BER cases (65-12, 82-5, 88-6) before present case involving Engineer A
The facts in the present case are somewhat different from the earlier cited cases... The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases.
being relieved of responsibility (event 5 in BER 88-6) before engineer continued to work as city engineer/director of public works
After (1)...(2)...(3)...(4)...(5) being relieved by the city administrator of responsibility for the disposal of plants and beds, the engineer continued to work in the capacity as city engineer/director of public works.
being relieved of responsibility (event 5 in BER 88-6)
engineer continued to work as city engineer/director of public works
being warned by city administrator (event 3 in BER 88-6) before discussing problem again informally with city council (event 4 in BER 88-6)
After... (3) being warned by the city administrator to report the problem only to him, (4) discussing the problem again informally with the city council...
being warned by city administrator (event 3 in BER 88-6)
discussing problem again informally with city council (event 4 in BER 88-6)
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
The Board finds that the public welfare obligation justifies refusal even at personal employment cost, distinguishing this from the BER 82-5 situation where no public health and safety danger was present.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
The Board declines to issue a blanket mandatory duty for non-safety concerns, preserving engineer autonomy while acknowledging the personal cost of exercising the right to advocate.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
The Board finds that the engineer's loyalty to employer and compliance with the city administrator's warning to report only internally cannot override the mandatory obligation to escalate to state authorities when internal channels have been exhausted and a pattern of ongoing legal violation persists.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
Faithful agent obligation and public welfare obligation are reconciled by routing the safety concern through the employer and client first, then escalating if they fail to act; the faithful agent role does not require ethical silence
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
The Board resolves the tension by characterizing the response as discretionary personal judgment rather than mandatory professional obligation, preserving the engineer's autonomy while acknowledging the reasonableness of a voluntary response.
The Board resolves the tension by holding that while public welfare is paramount, it does not extend to unlimited professional responsibility for all incidentally observed hazards unrelated to the engineer's engagement.
Proportionality permits a graduated response starting with employer notification, but does not permit inaction; the 'potential' nature of the hazard reduces urgency but does not eliminate the obligation
The paramountcy of public welfare overrides the scope-of-work limitation; Engineer A cannot simply ignore the observed hazard because it is outside the contracted scope
Routing through ES Consulting as intermediary is the appropriate first step; if ES Consulting fails to act appropriately, Engineer A's independent escalation obligation is triggered
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
The absence of a contractual relationship with Owner Y does not eliminate the duty; it shapes the form of the response (routing through employer and client as intermediaries) but does not permit inaction
The Board uses a contextual calibration approach, distinguishing cases by risk type, scope relationship, and availability of internal remedies to determine the appropriate level of mandatory obligation.
Scope-of-work limitations define what the engineer is required to investigate, not what the engineer is permitted to ignore when a hazard is already observed; the incidental observation disclosure obligation fills the gap
The scope limitation is acknowledged but does not extinguish the safety obligation; Engineer A must take some action proportional to the observed risk even though the property is outside the contracted scope
discussing problem again informally with city council (event 4 in BER 88-6) before being relieved of responsibility by city administrator (event 5 in BER 88-6)
After... (4) discussing the problem again informally with the city council, and (5) being relieved by the city administrator of responsibility for the disposal of plants and beds...
being relieved of responsibility by city administrator (event 5 in BER 88-6)
discussing problem privately with city council (event 2 in BER 88-6) before being warned by city administrator (event 3 in BER 88-6)
After... (2) discussing the problem privately with members of the city council, (3) being warned by the city administrator to report the problem only to him...
discussing problem privately with city council (event 2 in BER 88-6)
noticing overflow capacity problems (event 1 in BER 88-6) before discussing problem privately with city council members (event 2 in BER 88-6)
After (1) noticing problems with overflow capacity... (2) discussing the problem privately with members of the city council...
noticing overflow capacity problems (event 1 in BER 88-6)
discussing problem privately with city council members (event 2 in BER 88-6)
The NSPE Code of Ethics places the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public as the engineer's first and primary obligation, invoked as the foundational framework for analyzing all three BER precedent cases
The BER 88-6 city engineer/director of public works, aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for environmental law by her supervisor and city council, having made multiple failed internal escalation attempts, and knowing or should have know
Engineers in BER 65-12 who believed a product was unsafe were ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production, even at the cost of employment, because their professional judgment about public safety took prece
Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property triggers the fundamental public welfare obligation even though Owner Y is entirely outside the contractual web of the engagement; the public welfare duty doe
Engineer A observes safety hazards on Owner Y's property — a party entirely outside the contractual web of the engagement — and the complete absence of any relationship between the engineer's engagement and the affected property does not ex
Engineer A must proactively communicate the observed safety risk to relevant parties — at minimum ES Consulting, and potentially Client X, Owner Y, and regulatory authorities — without waiting for formal requests, harm to materialize, or co
Engineer A's professional obligation includes not allowing observed harm to materialize through inaction; by observing potential safety issues on Owner Y's property and taking no action, Engineer A would be passively contributing to harm th
Engineer A's contractual scope covers construction observation for Client X only; the adjacent Owner Y property is entirely outside this scope; however, the scope limitation does not ethically permit Engineer A to disregard observed safety
Owner Y is a directly affected third party whose property is the site of the observed safety hazard; if no other party in the engagement (ES Consulting, Client X) takes appropriate action, Engineer A may bear an obligation to directly notif
Engineer A's primary contracted obligation is to perform construction observation services faithfully for Client X through ES Consulting; however, this faithful agent obligation does not require Engineer A to remain silent about observed sa
The Board's review of BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6 demonstrates that the public safety obligation is calibrated to the nature of the risk (product safety vs. financial impropriety vs. environmental violation vs. out-of-scope observation)
While performing contracted construction observation services for Client X, Engineer A incidentally observes potential safety issues on the adjacent Owner Y property; this incidental observation triggers a disclosure obligation to appropria
Engineer A's response to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property must be calibrated to the imminence and severity of the risk: a serious, imminent hazard requires immediate and direct escalation (potentially including dire
Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues on the adjacent construction project does not generate a mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action, because the unsafe condition is outside Engineer A's professional
Engineer A's potential response of bringing the adjacent construction safety issue to the attention of ES Consulting superiors and Client X is characterized by the Board as a personal judgment and a potential response — not as a mandatory e
ES Consulting, as Engineer A's employer and the prime consultant on the Client X project, serves as the appropriate first escalation point for Engineer A's observation of safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property; Engineer A should notif
The BER 82-5 defense industry engineer who reported excessive costs and time delays to his employer had no mandatory ethical obligation to continue advocacy after employer rejection or to report to proper authorities, because the concern di
Engineers who believed a product was unsafe were ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production, even at the cost of employment, as a matter of upholding the paramount public safety obligation.
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that the contractual scope of construction observation services for Client X does not excuse inaction upon observing potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, and must not invoke scope-of-w
Engineer A is obligated to disclose the observed potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property to appropriate parties — at minimum ES Consulting — upon observation, notwithstanding the absence of any contractual relationship with O
Engineer A is obligated to escalate the observed safety concerns on Owner Y's adjacent property to ES Consulting as the employer and prime consultant, as the first and appropriate organizational escalation step, before or in lieu of direct
Engineer A is conditionally obligated to notify Owner Y directly of the observed safety issues if ES Consulting and Client X fail to take adequate corrective action after being informed, notwithstanding the complete absence of any prior rel
Engineer A is obligated to calibrate the scope and urgency of the response to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property to the imminence and severity of the risk — escalating through ES Consulting first, then to Owner Y dire
Engineer A is obligated to fulfill the faithful agent duty to Client X within the bounds of professional ethics, recognizing that this duty does not extend to suppressing or ignoring observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, an
Engineer A has no mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action upon observing potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, as the unsafe condition is not within Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility
Engineer A must recognize that the professional scope of responsibility boundary is the key determinant of whether a mandatory safety obligation arises from the observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property — and tha
If Engineer A chooses to respond to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, one permissible response is to bring the matter to the attention of ES Consulting superiors and Client X to explore informing appropriate respons
ES Consulting, upon receiving Engineer A's report of observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, is obligated to coordinate the appropriate response — including determining whether direct notification to Owner Y is warranted — an
The Board recognized that the defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive costs and time delays to the employer had no mandatory ethical obligation to continue advocacy after employer rejection or to report to external a
The city engineer/director of public works, after observing a pattern of ongoing disregard for environmental law by the city administrator and city council and after multiple failed internal escalation attempts, was obligated to recognize t
BER 65-12 Engineers Unsafe Product Refusal
From engineers' formation of the belief that the product was unsafe through their refusal to participate
Public potentially exposed to the product
a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation State
Group of engineers who believed a product was unsafe and refused to participate in its processing or production
Engineers' departure from the project or resolution of the safety concern
such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment, but the engineers had a right to maintain their position
Engineers' professional judgment that the product in question was unsafe
{'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 82-5', 'action': 'Internal documentation and reporting of contractor cost/schedule violations', 'escalation_status': 'Discretionary — employer rejected reports'}
An engineer employed by a large defense industry firm who documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors to their employer. After the employer rejected the reports, the Board ruled the engineer had no ethical duty to continue internal efforts or report externally, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Large defense industry firm'}
an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors
had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports
BER 82-5 Engineer Whistleblower Personal Conscience Right
From employer's rejection of the engineer's reports through the engineer's decision on further action
Public (as funders of defense expenditure)
Professional Obligation Boundary Determination State
Defense industry engineer who reported excessive subcontractor costs and time delays — determining whether continued internal campaign or external disclosure constitutes ethical obligation vs. personal conscience right
Engineer's decision to continue or cease the internal campaign
Employer's rejection of engineer's reports on excessive subcontractor costs and time delays
{'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 88-6', 'gender': 'Female (per Board discussion)', 'position': 'City engineer/director of public works', 'violation_type': 'Wastewater overflow capacity — required state reporting', 'outcome': "Found to have failed ethical obligations; characterized as 'accessory' to ongoing violation"}
A city engineer/director of public works responsible for disposal of poultry processing facility plants and beds who observed overflow capacity problems requiring state reporting, attempted internal escalation to city administrator and council members, was warned off by the city administrator, and ultimately failed to escalate to state water pollution control authorities. The Board found she failed her ethical obligations by not recognizing that state officials were the 'proper authorities' when municipal officials were complicit.
{'type': 'informed', 'target': 'City Council Members'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'City Administrator'}
{'type': 'should_have_reported_to', 'target': 'State Water Pollution Control Authorities'}
Municipal Environmental Compliance Engineer
employed as the city engineer/director of public works with responsibility for disposal of plants and beds associated with poultry processing facilities
'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably, state officials
noticing problems with overflow capacity, which are required to be reported to the state water pollution control authorities
the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor
the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory'
BER 88-6 City Engineer Superior Suppression of State Reporting
From the city administrator's warning through the engineer's continued inaction on external reporting
State water pollution control authorities
Superior Authority Suppression of Regulatory Reporting Obligation State
City engineer/director of public works warned by city administrator to report overflow capacity violations only internally, suppressing legally required state water pollution control authority notification
Would have terminated upon engineer reporting to state authorities or remediation of the violation
The Board said that the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator
the engineer knew, or should have known, that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably, state officials
the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor, as well as by members of the city council
City administrator's explicit warning to the engineer to report the overflow capacity problem only to him, despite the legal obligation to report to state water pollution control authorities
Do No Harm Obligation Invoked Regarding Subcontractor Safety Issues on Owner Y Property
Potential safety issues caused by subcontractor work on Owner Y's adjacent property
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
Engineer A's professional obligation includes not allowing observed harm to materialize through inaction; by observing potential safety issues on Owner Y's property and taking no action, Engineer A would be passively contributing to harm through professional inaction, which the do no harm principle prohibits
Do no harm extends beyond active harmful conduct to encompass professional inaction in the face of observed hazards; an engineer who observes a safety risk and does nothing is not ethically neutral — the failure to act is itself a form of professional harm
Do No Harm Obligation in Professional Engineering Services
Do no harm obligation requires at minimum notification to the employer; complete inaction is not ethically permissible regardless of scope limitations
{'firm_type': 'Consulting engineering firm', 'relationship_to_client': 'Prime consultant to Client X', 'relationship_to_owner_y': 'No direct relationship'}
The consulting engineering firm that employs Engineer A and through which construction observation services are delivered to Client X
{'type': 'contracted_with', 'target': 'Client X'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'scope': 'Construction observation for Client X', 'adjacent_relationship': 'None — no contractual or professional relationship with adjacent property owner'}
Engineer A is performing construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting and observes potential safety issues on an adjacent construction project with which Engineer A, ES Consulting, and Client X have no contractual relationship. The Board rules that Engineer A bears no mandatory ethical duty to take immediate direct action but may exercise personal judgment to bring the matter to superiors.
{'type': 'adjacent_observer', 'target': 'Adjacent Third-Party Property Owner Stakeholder'}
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client X'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'ES Consulting'}
Scope-Limited Sub-Consultant Engineer with Incidental Safety Observation
Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues in connection with the adjacent construction project
Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Site Safety Observation
From the moment Engineer A observes the adjacent site safety issues through the conclusion of the Board's analysis
Adjacent Property Safety Observation Without Client Relationship State
Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues on the adjacent construction project while performing construction observation for Client X
Engineer A taking voluntary responsive action or concluding the engagement
this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
Engineer A's incidental observation of unsafe conditions on the adjacent construction project during performance of services for Client X
Engineer A Personal Conscience Discretion on Adjacent Site Safety
From Engineer A's recognition of the adjacent site safety issues through any voluntary responsive action or conclusion of engagement
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Conscience Discretion State
Engineer A's ethical posture regarding the adjacent site safety observation — permissible but not obligatory responsive action
Engineer A taking voluntary action or determining no action is warranted
One potential response could include bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X
an engineer cannot be expected to take on personal or professional responsibility for each and every potential health and safety risk they may be exposed to during the course of a day
Board determination that the out-of-scope safety observation creates a personal conscience right but not a mandatory ethical obligation
ES Consulting Employer Intermediary Safety Coordination Owner Y
ES Consulting is the prime consultant and Engineer A's employer; upon receiving the escalated safety concern from Engineer A, ES Consulting bears organizational responsibility for coordinating the response to the third-party safety observation.
Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
ES Consulting, upon receiving Engineer A's report of observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, is obligated to coordinate the appropriate response — including determining whether direct notification to Owner Y is warranted — and to ensure that the public welfare obligation is fulfilled through proper channels.
Upon receiving Engineer A's escalated report of the observed safety issues
Ethics Bodies Unlimited Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Engineer A Case
The Board is determining whether Engineer A has a mandatory ethical obligation to act upon observed safety issues on an adjacent property entirely outside the contracted scope of construction observation services for Client X.
Unlimited Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Obligation
The Board of Ethical Review must refrain from imposing upon Engineer A an unlimited personal and professional safety accountability obligation extending to every potential health and safety risk incidentally encountered during the course of a day that is essentially unrelated to the contracted services.
At the time of ethics review determination regarding Engineer A's obligations
Non-Contractual Safety Observation Scope Boundary Recognition Engineer A Adjacent Property
The Board is distinguishing the present case from BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6 to determine the scope of Engineer A's obligation regarding observed adjacent property safety issues.
Non-Contractual Safety Observation Scope Boundary Recognition Obligation
The Board must recognize that the key factual distinction between the present case and prior BER cases generating mandatory safety obligations is that the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility, and that this distinction determines whether a mandatory or merely discretionary response obligation arises.
At the time of ethics review and determination
While the obligation is an important and essential one, it is not without some limits with regard to the role of the engineer in society generally
Adjacent Property Safety Hazard Observation – Owner Y Site
From the moment Engineer A observes the safety issues on the adjacent property, persisting until appropriate notification or resolution
Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property during Client X engagement
Communication of the safety concern to Owner Y, the subcontractor, relevant authorities, or determination that no actionable hazard exists
Engineer A observes potential safety issues caused by a subcontractor on the adjacent property being constructed for Owner Y
{'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 65-12', 'action': 'Refusal to participate in unsafe product processing/production'}
A group of engineers in BER Case 65-12 believed a product was unsafe and were found ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production, even at the risk of losing employment.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Product manufacturing employer'}
Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Obligation Across BER Precedents
Cross-case calibration of public safety reporting obligation
Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
The Board's review of BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6 demonstrates that the public safety obligation is calibrated to the nature of the risk (product safety vs. financial impropriety vs. environmental violation vs. out-of-scope observation), generating different obligations (refusal right, personal conscience right, mandatory external escalation, and discretionary response respectively).
The same foundational public welfare obligation generates materially different specific obligations depending on the nature, severity, and scope-relationship of the safety concern — requiring engineers to calibrate their response to the specific context rather than applying a uniform rule.
Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has reviewed a variety of cases over the years that have explored the scope and bounds of that obligation.
Engineer A – No Relationship with Owner Y Obligation Boundary
From the moment of observation through Engineer A's decision about whether and how to act
Engineer A's need to determine the scope and mechanism of any obligation toward Owner Y and the adjacent property, given the complete absence of any direct relationship
Engineer A determines and executes an appropriate course of action (notification, escalation, or documented determination of no actionable obligation)
Recognition that the safety concern involves a party with whom no direct relationship exists, requiring determination of whether paramount public safety obligations override the relational boundary
Potential Unconfirmed Safety Risk – Adjacent Subcontractor Work
From Engineer A's observation until the risk is confirmed, mitigated, or dismissed
Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm State
The nature of the observed safety issues — described as 'potential' — on the Owner Y construction site
Formal assessment confirming or ruling out the hazard; corrective action by the subcontractor or Owner Y
Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues during construction observation services
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A for Owner Y Hazard
Potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
Engineer A must proactively communicate the observed safety risk to relevant parties — at minimum ES Consulting, and potentially Client X, Owner Y, and regulatory authorities — without waiting for formal requests, harm to materialize, or contractual authorization, because the risk affects third-party welfare and the professional obligation to disclose is not contingent on being asked
Proactive disclosure is especially important here because Owner Y, having no relationship with any party in the engagement, has no mechanism to receive safety information unless Engineer A (or ES Consulting/Client X acting on Engineer A's notification) proactively provides it
Proactive disclosure obligation overrides the passive interpretation of scope-of-work limitations; the engineer must act, not merely refrain from acting
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Primary Engineering Obligation
Adjacent construction safety observation
The NSPE Code of Ethics places the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public as the engineer's first and primary obligation, invoked as the foundational framework for analyzing all three BER precedent cases and the current case involving Engineer A.
Public welfare paramount is the first and primary obligation of all engineers, but its application varies by context — it generates mandatory refusal rights in product safety, discretionary whistleblowing rights in financial impropriety, mandatory external escalation in environmental violations, and discretionary response in out-of-scope safety observations.
The NSPE Code of Ethics places the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public as the engineer's first and primary obligation.
The Board resolves tensions by calibrating the strength of the public welfare obligation to the nature of the risk (health/safety vs. financial), the engineer's professional scope, and the availability of internal remedies.
An engineer's role in protecting the public health and safety is fundamental and basic to the overall ethical responsibilities of all engineers.
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Invoked Regarding Owner Y
Owner Y as the property owner of the adjacent site where safety issues were observed
Owner Y is a directly affected third party whose property is the site of the observed safety hazard; if no other party in the engagement (ES Consulting, Client X) takes appropriate action, Engineer A may bear an obligation to directly notify Owner Y of the observed safety risk, because Owner Y is the party most directly exposed to the hazard and may not otherwise receive timely warning
The complete absence of any relationship between Engineer A's engagement and Owner Y does not eliminate the notification obligation; if anything, it heightens the need for direct notification because there is no existing channel through which Owner Y would receive the safety information
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
Direct notification to Owner Y is appropriate if employer and client channels fail to ensure the safety concern reaches the affected party; the obligation escalates as other channels prove insufficient
BER 88-6 City Engineer Supervisory Inaction Environmental Complicity Avoidance
BER Case 88-6: City engineer responsible for disposal of poultry processing facility plants and beds observed overflow capacity problems required to be reported to state water pollution control authorities, reported internally to city administrator and city council members, was warned to report only to the city administrator, and was relieved of responsibility — yet continued working without escalating to state authorities.
BER 88-6 City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Supervisory Inaction Environmental Law Violation Complicity Avoidance Obligation
The city engineer/director of public works, after observing a pattern of ongoing disregard for environmental law by the city administrator and city council and after multiple failed internal escalation attempts, was obligated to recognize that state water pollution control authorities — not city officials — were the 'proper authorities' and to escalate the overflow capacity violation to those external state authorities.
In ruling that the engineer failed to fulfill her ethical obligations by informing the city administrator and certain members of the city council of her concern, the Board found that the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor, as well as by members of the city council
After multiple failed internal escalation attempts and after being relieved of responsibility for the disposal facilities
The Board said that the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory' to the actions of the city administrator and others
Engineer A Permissible Employer Escalation Adjacent Safety Observation
Engineer A observes potential safety issues from subcontractor work on Owner Y's adjacent property while performing contracted construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Permissible Employer Escalation Obligation
If Engineer A chooses to respond to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, one permissible response is to bring the matter to the attention of ES Consulting superiors and Client X to explore informing appropriate responsible parties on the adjacent site, particularly if the safety issues could disrupt or affect the progress of work on Client X's property.
Upon observation of potential safety issues on adjacent property, if Engineer A elects to respond
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Regarding Owner Y Safety
Potential safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property caused by subcontractor work
Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property triggers the fundamental public welfare obligation even though Owner Y is entirely outside the contractual web of the engagement; the public welfare duty does not terminate at the property line of the client's project
Public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to take some affirmative action regarding the observed safety hazard, even in the complete absence of any contractual relationship with Owner Y, because the professional obligation to protect the public is not contingent on a client relationship with the affected party
Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense Invoked in Engineer A Adjacent Property Scenario
Potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property observed incidentally during Client X work
Engineer A's contractual scope covers construction observation for Client X only; the adjacent Owner Y property is entirely outside this scope; however, the scope limitation does not ethically permit Engineer A to disregard observed safety hazards on that adjacent property, because the scope defines the boundaries of required investigation, not the boundaries of ethical responsibility for hazards already observed
The scope-of-work limitation is a contractual construct that cannot override the engineer's fundamental professional obligation to address observed safety hazards; it is an incomplete defense to inaction when a hazard has already been observed
Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X... observes potential safety issues... on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y
In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Applied to BER 82-5 Defense Engineer
Defense industry subcontractor cost and delay reporting
Post-employer-rejection advocacy decision
The BER 82-5 defense industry engineer who reported excessive costs and time delays to his employer had no mandatory ethical obligation to continue advocacy after employer rejection or to report to proper authorities, because the concern did not involve public health or safety danger — but retained a personal right to do so as a matter of conscience, potentially at the cost of employment.
Where the concern involves financial impropriety and unsatisfactory plans rather than public health and safety danger, the ethics code generates a right to continue advocacy but not a mandatory duty, making further action a matter of personal conscience.
The Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to a proper authority, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
In this type of situation, the Board felt that the ethical duty or right of the engineer became a matter of personal conscience, but the Board was unwilling to issue a blanket statement that there was an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue the campaign within the company and make the issue one for public discussion.
The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but instead related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds.
if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to 'blow the whistle' to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
Supervisory Inaction Complicity Applied to BER 88-6 City Engineer
Environmental overflow capacity violation reporting
External escalation after failed internal remedies
Municipal environmental compliance obligation
Confidentiality of Employer Information in Public Agency Context
The BER 88-6 city engineer/director of public works, aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for environmental law by her supervisor and city council, having made multiple failed internal escalation attempts, and knowing or should have known that state officials were the proper reporting authority, failed her ethical obligations by continuing in her role without external escalation — her inaction making her an accessory to the ongoing violations.
When an engineer in a position of public responsibility has exhausted internal escalation and knows the proper external authority, continued inaction constitutes complicity in the ongoing violation — the engineer cannot hide behind organizational hierarchy as an excuse for failing to protect the public.
Supervisory Inaction Complicity Principle
The Board could not find it credible that a city engineer/director of public works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of this basic obligation.
The Board found that the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor, as well as by members of the city council.
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked for Engineer A Client X Relationship
Construction observation services for Client X
Observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
Non-Contractual Third-Party Safety Observation Duty
Engineer A's primary contracted obligation is to perform construction observation services faithfully for Client X through ES Consulting; however, this faithful agent obligation does not require Engineer A to remain silent about observed safety hazards on adjacent property, because the ethical limits of the faithful agent role include the paramount duty to public welfare
The faithful agent obligation to Client X is preserved by notifying ES Consulting and Client X of the observed hazard; it does not require suppression of the safety observation, and it does not prohibit appropriate escalation to Owner Y or authorities if needed
Non-Contractual Third-Party Safety Observation Duty Invoked by Engineer A
Subcontractor safety issues on Owner Y's property
Engineer A observes safety hazards on Owner Y's property — a party entirely outside the contractual web of the engagement — and the complete absence of any relationship between the engineer's engagement and the affected property does not extinguish the professional obligation to take reasonable steps to address the observed hazard
This is the core ethical challenge of the case: the engineer's professional duty to public safety is not bounded by contractual relationships; the total absence of any nexus between the engagement and the affected property makes this a paradigm case for the principle that public welfare obligations attach to professional licensure, not to contractual engagement
Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked for ES Consulting Role
ES Consulting's role as employer intermediary
Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
ES Consulting, as Engineer A's employer and the prime consultant on the Client X project, serves as the appropriate first escalation point for Engineer A's observation of safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property; Engineer A should notify ES Consulting, enabling the firm to coordinate an appropriate response that may include notifying Client X, Owner Y, or regulatory authorities
The employer intermediary role is particularly important in this case because the affected party (Owner Y) has no relationship with any party in the engagement; ES Consulting's institutional authority and resources make it better positioned than Engineer A acting alone to coordinate an appropriate response
Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm... a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
Engineer A Employer Intermediary Escalation ES Consulting Owner Y Safety
Engineer A is employed by ES Consulting and performs services through that firm; ES Consulting is the appropriate organizational intermediary for coordinating the response to out-of-scope safety observations on adjacent third-party property.
Engineer A is obligated to escalate the observed safety concerns on Owner Y's adjacent property to ES Consulting as the employer and prime consultant, as the first and appropriate organizational escalation step, before or in lieu of direct unilateral action toward Owner Y.
Promptly upon observation of the potential safety issues, before taking any unilateral direct action toward Owner Y
Engineer A No-Nexus Direct Notification Owner Y Conditional
Owner Y has no contractual or professional relationship with Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X; direct notification to Owner Y becomes obligatory if the employer-intermediary escalation pathway fails to produce adequate corrective action.
No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Direct Safety Notification Obligation
Engineer A is conditionally obligated to notify Owner Y directly of the observed safety issues if ES Consulting and Client X fail to take adequate corrective action after being informed, notwithstanding the complete absence of any prior relationship with Owner Y.
Conditional on ES Consulting and/or Client X failing to take adequate corrective action after being informed of the observed safety issues
Engineer A Scope Non-Excuse Adjacent Property Safety Owner Y
Engineer A's contracted scope covers only construction observation for Client X; Owner Y's adjacent property is entirely outside this scope and outside any contractual relationship; the scope limitation is not a valid ethical defense for inaction.
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Adjacent Third-Party Safety Observation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that the contractual scope of construction observation services for Client X does not excuse inaction upon observing potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, and must not invoke scope-of-work limitations as justification for failing to act on the observed safety concerns.
Upon observation of the potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
Product Safety Refusal Right Applied to BER 65-12 Engineers
Unsafe product processing and production refusal
Engineers in BER 65-12 who believed a product was unsafe were ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production, even at the cost of employment, because their professional judgment about public safety took precedence over employer directives.
Public welfare paramount generates a right — and implicitly a duty — to refuse participation in work the engineer believes to be unsafe, with employment consequences being an accepted cost of professional integrity.
Proportional Escalation Obligation Invoked for Engineer A Adjacent Property Safety Concern
Potential safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property
Engineer A's response to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property must be calibrated to the imminence and severity of the risk: a serious, imminent hazard requires immediate and direct escalation (potentially including direct notification to Owner Y and regulatory authorities), while a less urgent concern may be appropriately addressed through notification to ES Consulting and Client X with documented follow-up
The word 'potential' in the case text signals that the safety issues are not yet confirmed as definite hazards; this calibrates the escalation obligation toward a measured but still affirmative response — notification to employer and client, with assessment of whether direct third-party or regulatory notification is warranted
BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusal Right Recognition
BER Case 65-12: A group of engineers believed a product was unsafe and the Board determined they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in its processing or production, recognizing that such action would likely lead to loss of employment.
the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
Upon forming the belief that the product was unsafe and being required to participate in its processing or production
The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question
BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Non-Mandatory Duty
BER Case 82-5: Engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors to the employer; the employer rejected the reports; the Board was asked whether the engineer had a mandatory obligation to continue the campaign or report to external authorities.
Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Non-Mandatory Duty Recognition Obligation
The Board recognized that the defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive costs and time delays to the employer had no mandatory ethical obligation to continue advocacy after employer rejection or to report to external authorities, because the matter did not involve a direct danger to public health and safety — making further action a matter of personal conscience and ethical right rather than professional duty.
the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to a proper authority, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
After employer rejection of the engineer's reports regarding excessive costs and time delays
The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but instead related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
the board was unwilling to issue a blanket statement that there was an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue the campaign within the company and make the issue one for public discussion
Engineer A Scope Boundary Recognition Adjacent Property Safety Observation
Engineer A performing contracted construction observation services for Client X observes potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property arising from subcontractor work.
Engineer A must recognize that the professional scope of responsibility boundary is the key determinant of whether a mandatory safety obligation arises from the observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property — and that because the observed condition is outside Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility, no mandatory obligation to act arises.
Upon observation of potential safety issues on adjacent property
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
Safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property during contracted work for Client X
While performing contracted construction observation services for Client X, Engineer A incidentally observes potential safety issues on the adjacent Owner Y property; this incidental observation triggers a disclosure obligation to appropriate parties even though the observation falls entirely outside the contracted scope of work
The incidental observation of a safety hazard — even one on a completely separate property with no contractual nexus — generates a disclosure obligation because professional licensure creates duties to the public that transcend the boundaries of any particular engagement
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
During the performance of the construction observation services for Client X, Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
Engineer A Proportional Escalation Calibration Owner Y Safety Risk
The observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property may range from non-imminent to imminent depending on the nature of the subcontractor work; Engineer A must calibrate the escalation response proportionally.
Proportional Multi-Authority Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to calibrate the scope and urgency of the response to the observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property to the imminence and severity of the risk — escalating through ES Consulting first, then to Owner Y directly, and to public authorities if the risk is imminent and widespread — rather than defaulting to either minimum or maximum response.
Upon assessment of the imminence and severity of the observed safety issues
Scope-Bounded Public Safety Obligation Applied to Engineer A Adjacent Observation
Adjacent third-party construction safety observation
Out-of-scope safety hazard response determination
Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues on the adjacent construction project does not generate a mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action, because the unsafe condition is outside Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility — a key factual distinction from prior BER cases where the safety concern was within the engineer's professional scope.
The scope-of-engagement boundary is a key determinant of whether public safety observations generate mandatory obligations or discretionary responses; out-of-scope observations trigger personal judgment rather than professional duty.
The facts in the present case are somewhat different from the earlier cited cases, notably because the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A. The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Client X Boundary Owner Y Safety
Engineer A's primary contracted obligation is to perform construction observation services faithfully for Client X through ES Consulting; however, this faithful agent duty does not override the public welfare obligation triggered by observing safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property.
Engineer A is obligated to fulfill the faithful agent duty to Client X within the bounds of professional ethics, recognizing that this duty does not extend to suppressing or ignoring observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, and that the faithful agent obligation to Client X is bounded by the overriding public welfare obligation.
Throughout the performance of construction observation services for Client X
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Discretionary Response Applied to Engineer A
Adjacent property safety observation response
Employer notification decision for out-of-scope hazard
Engineer A's potential response of bringing the adjacent construction safety issue to the attention of ES Consulting superiors and Client X is characterized by the Board as a personal judgment and a potential response — not as a mandatory ethical obligation — because the safety concern is outside Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility.
When a safety concern is outside the engineer's professional scope, the ethics code does not impose a mandatory duty to take immediate or direct action; the engineer's response is a matter of personal professional judgment, with employer notification being a reasonable but not required option.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Discretionary Response Principle
Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Response
Engineer A is performing construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting and incidentally observes potential safety issues arising from subcontractor work on the adjacent property of Owner Y, with whom no contractual relationship exists.
Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Response Obligation
Engineer A has no mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action upon observing potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property, as the unsafe condition is not within Engineer A's professional scope of responsibility; any response is a matter of personal professional judgment.
Upon observation of potential safety issues on adjacent property during contracted construction observation services
Engineer A Adjacent Third-Party Safety Disclosure Owner Y
Adjacent Third-Party Property Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose the observed potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property to appropriate parties — at minimum ES Consulting — upon observation, notwithstanding the absence of any contractual relationship with Owner Y.
Upon observation of the potential safety issues during the performance of construction observation services for Client X
{'employer': 'ES Consulting', 'contracted_scope': "Construction observation for Client X's project", 'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by engineering role)', 'observation_context': 'Adjacent third-party property with no contractual nexus'}
Performs construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting and observes potential safety issues from subcontractor work on adjacent property owned by Owner Y, with whom no direct relationship exists
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'ES Consulting'}
{'type': 'observes_safety_risk_on_property_of', 'target': 'Owner Y'}
{'type': 'provides_services_to', 'target': 'Client X'}
Construction Observation Engineer with Adjacent Third-Party Safety Observation