ProEthica Case 139 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.752196
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Adjacent Property Safety Hazard Observation – Owner Y Site
type: AdjacentPropertySafetyObservationWithoutClientRelationshipState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A observes the safety issues on the adjacent property, persisting until appropriate notification or resolution
affectedparties: Client X
affectedparties: ES Consulting
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public potentially at risk
affectedparties: Owner Y
affectedparties: Subcontractor on adjacent property
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:26.557632+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:26.557632+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Adjacent Property Safety Observation Without Client Relationship State
subject: Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property during Client X engagement
terminatedby: Communication of the safety concern to Owner Y, the subcontractor, relevant authorities, or determination that no actionable hazard exists
textreferences: 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
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
triggeringevent: Engineer A observes potential safety issues caused by a subcontractor on the adjacent property being constructed for Owner Y
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.753586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Adjacent Safety Hazard Exists
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Adjacent Safety Hazard Exists (Event 1) → Take Direct Action with Adjacent Site Parties (Action 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER-Case-65-12
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 65-12
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.755041
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER-Case-82-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 82-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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...
textreferences: 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...
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.755167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER-Case-88-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 88-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case No. 88-6, an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works...
textreferences: In BER Case No. 88-6, an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works...
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.755315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER-Case-Precedent-Adjacent-Property-Safety
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Third-Party Safety Obligations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: Ethics reviewers and Engineer A in analogical reasoning about third-party safety duties
usedincontext: 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
version: Various
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.753132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusal Right Recognition
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: BER 65-12 Engineers
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
temporalscope: Upon forming the belief that the product was unsafe and being required to participate in its processing or production
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.765998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusal Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty
type: WhistleblowingRightvsMandatoryDutyDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER 65-12 — engineers believed a product was unsafe and refused to participate in its processing or production
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: BER ruling that engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in processing or production of a product they believed unsafe
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusers
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusers
type: ProductSafetyRefusingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 65-12', 'action': 'Refusal to participate in unsafe product processing/production'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Product manufacturing employer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Product Safety Refusing Engineer
sourcetext: a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
textreferences: a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
textreferences: such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment, but the engineers had a right to maintain their position
textreferences: the engineers were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.757155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 65-12 Engineers Unsafe Product Refusal
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernWithoutDemonstrableViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From engineers' formation of the belief that the product was unsafe through their refusal to participate
affectedparties: Employer
affectedparties: Group of engineers (BER 65-12)
affectedparties: Public potentially exposed to the product
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
stateclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation State
subject: Group of engineers who believed a product was unsafe and refused to participate in its processing or production
terminatedby: Engineers' departure from the project or resolution of the safety concern
textreferences: a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
textreferences: 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
textreferences: such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment, but the engineers had a right to maintain their position
triggeringevent: Engineers' professional judgment that the product in question was unsafe
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.756543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 65-12 Engineers Unsafe Product Refusal Personal Conscience Employment Cost Acceptance
type: PersonalConvictionDissentPermissibilityBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Group of Engineers (BER Case 65-12)
constraintclass: Personal Conviction Dissent Permissibility Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: BER Case No. 65-12; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout the engineers' continued refusal to participate in the processing or production of the product believed to be unsafe
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.767200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Whistleblower Personal Conscience Non-Mandatory Continuation
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyObservationPersonalConscienceNon-MandatoryActionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Defense Industry Engineer (BER Case 82-5)
constraintclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Conscience Non-Mandatory Action Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case No. 82-5; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: After the employer rejected the engineer's reports regarding excessive subcontractor costs and time delays
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.767050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Non-Mandatory Duty
type: WhistleblowingPersonalConscienceRightNon-MandatoryDutyRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Non-Mandatory Duty Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: After employer rejection of the engineer's reports regarding excessive costs and time delays
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.765847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 82-5 Defense Engineer Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination
type: WhistleblowingRightvsMandatoryDutyDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER 82-5 — defense industry engineer documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors to employer, who rejected the reports
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER ruling that the engineer had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue whistleblowing after employer rejection
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 82-5 Defense Industry Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.768128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 82-5 Defense Industry Engineer
type: DefenseIndustryWhistleblowerEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 82-5', 'action': 'Internal documentation and reporting of contractor cost/schedule violations', 'escalation_status': 'Discretionary — employer rejected reports'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Large defense industry firm'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Defense Industry Whistleblower Engineer
sourcetext: an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors
textreferences: an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors
textreferences: had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.757289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 82-5 Engineer Whistleblower Personal Conscience Right
type: ProfessionalObligationBoundaryDeterminationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From employer's rejection of the engineer's reports through the engineer's decision on further action
affectedparties: Employer (defense industry firm)
affectedparties: Engineer (BER 82-5)
affectedparties: Public (as funders of defense expenditure)
affectedparties: Subcontractors
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Professional Obligation Boundary Determination State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Engineer's decision to continue or cease the internal campaign
textreferences: had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the ethical duty or right of the engineer became a matter of personal conscience
triggeringevent: Employer's rejection of engineer's reports on excessive subcontractor costs and time delays
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.756396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
type: MunicipalEnvironmentalComplianceEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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"}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'informed', 'target': 'City Council Members'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'City Administrator'}
relationships: {'type': 'should_have_reported_to', 'target': 'State Water Pollution Control Authorities'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Municipal Environmental Compliance Engineer
sourcetext: employed as the city engineer/director of public works with responsibility for disposal of plants and beds associated with poultry processing facilities
textreferences: 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably, state officials
textreferences: employed as the city engineer/director of public works with responsibility for disposal of plants and beds associated with poultry processing facilities
textreferences: noticing problems with overflow capacity, which are required to be reported to the state water pollution control authorities
textreferences: the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor
textreferences: the engineer's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and made the engineer an 'accessory'
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.757494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Superior Suppression State Regulatory Reporting Non-Compliance
type: SuperiorAuthorityEnvironmentalRegulatoryReportingSuppressionNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: City Engineer / Director of Public Works (BER Case 88-6)
constraintclass: Superior Authority Environmental Regulatory Reporting Suppression Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case No. 88-6; NSPE Code of Ethics; State water pollution control reporting requirements
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: being warned by the city administrator to report the problem only to him
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.766910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Superior Suppression of State Reporting
type: SuperiorAuthoritySuppressionofRegulatoryReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the city administrator's warning through the engineer's continued inaction on external reporting
affectedparties: City administrator
affectedparties: City council members
affectedparties: City engineer/director of public works
affectedparties: Public affected by water pollution
affectedparties: State water pollution control authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: being warned by the city administrator to report the problem only to him
stateclass: Superior Authority Suppression of Regulatory Reporting Obligation State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Would have terminated upon engineer reporting to state authorities or remediation of the violation
textreferences: 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
textreferences: being warned by the city administrator to report the problem only to him
textreferences: the engineer knew, or should have known, that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably, state officials
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.756238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Supervisory Chain Environmental Compliance Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Supervisor
type: SupervisoryChainEnvironmentalComplianceEscalationBeyondUnresponsiveSupervisorCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supervisory Chain Environmental Compliance Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Supervisor Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: BER ruling that the engineer failed her ethical obligations by not escalating to state water pollution control authorities after local supervisory chain proved unresponsive
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.768285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER 88-6 City Engineer Supervisory Inaction Environmental Complicity Avoidance
type: SupervisoryInactionEnvironmentalLawViolationComplicityAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER 88-6 City Engineer/Director of Public Works
obligationclass: Supervisory Inaction Environmental Law Violation Complicity Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: After multiple failed internal escalation attempts and after being relieved of responsibility for the disposal facilities
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.765335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Case 65-12 before BER Case 82-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Case 65-12 before BER Case 88-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Case 82-5 before BER Case 88-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Case No. 65-12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Case No. 82-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Case No. 88-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Ethics Bodies BER Multi-Case Precedent Factual Distinction Analysis Engineer A Case
type: BERMulti-CasePrecedentFactualDistinctionAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Multi-Case Precedent Factual Distinction Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER analysis of Engineer A's obligations regarding out-of-scope adjacent property safety observations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: BER comparative analysis of three prior cases against Engineer A's situation, concluding that the professional scope of responsibility distinction is determinative
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: In BER Case No. 88-6, an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.768438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Ethics Bodies Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Nexus Determination Engineer A Case
type: ProfessionalScopeofResponsibilitySafetyObligationNexusDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Nexus Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER comparative analysis of Engineer A's case against BER Cases 65-12, 82-5, and 88-6
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: BER analysis distinguishing the present case from prior precedents on the basis of professional scope of responsibility
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.767984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

BER Ethics Bodies Unlimited Professional Liability Exposure Recognition Engineer A Case
type: UnlimitedProfessionalLiabilityExposureRecognitionandResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlimited Professional Liability Exposure Recognition and Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER analysis of whether Engineer A has a mandatory obligation to respond to safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: BER ruling that Engineer A has no mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action on out-of-scope adjacent property safety observations
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: To do otherwise would make Engineer A accountable for a wide range of public duties and responsibilities that are beyond the bounds of reason
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.767773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Case 139 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

CausalLink_Decide Whether to Ignore Adjac
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

CausalLink_Escalate Internally to ES Cons
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

CausalLink_Observe Adjacent Safety Issues
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

CausalLink_Perform Construction Observati
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

CausalLink_Refuse Participation in Unsafe
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

CausalLink_Report Excessive Costs to Empl
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

CausalLink_Report Overflow Capacity Probl
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

CausalLink_Take Direct Action with Adjace
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Client X Construction Observation Client
type: Provider-ClientRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'service_received': 'Construction observation', 'relationship_to_owner_y': 'No direct relationship'}
caseinvolvement: The client for whom ES Consulting and Engineer A are performing construction observation services on a specific project
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:29.170852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:29.170852+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'Owner Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains_services_of', 'target': 'ES Consulting'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Provider-Client Role
sourcetext: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
textreferences: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.756990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A should bring this potential safety issue to the attention of Engineer A's supervisor and ES Consulting.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.2.
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: 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.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.1.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: III.2.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.552953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: I.1.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.2.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.2.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Construction-Safety-Knowledge-Standard
type: ConstructionSafetyKnowledgeStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering consensus
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Construction Safety Knowledge Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Construction Safety Knowledge Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
textreferences: Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor
textreferences: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
usedby: Engineer A in assessing the nature and severity of observed safety issues during construction observation
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.752636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Obligation Across BER Precedents
type: ContextualCalibrationofPublicSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Cross-case calibration of public safety reporting obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Scope-Bounded Public Safety Obligation Principle
balancingwith: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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).
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusers
invokedby: BER 82-5 Defense Industry Engineer
invokedby: BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.764594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP10
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP10
decision question: 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?
focus: 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
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.555868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Employer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.555094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.555192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.555280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.555532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.555632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.555714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.555794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk (Action 3) → Escalate Internally to ES Consulting and Client X Superiors (Action 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Do No Harm Obligation Invoked Regarding Subcontractor Safety Issues on Owner Y Property
type: DoNoHarmObligationinProfessionalEngineeringServices
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Potential safety issues caused by subcontractor work on Owner Y's adjacent property
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Do No Harm Obligation in Professional Engineering Services
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: Do no harm obligation requires at minimum notification to the employer; complete inaction is not ethically permissible regardless of scope limitations
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.759025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ES Consulting Employer Engineering Firm
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'type': 'Engineering consulting firm', 'function': 'Prime consultant / employer of Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Client X'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X
textreferences: bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.756833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ES Consulting Employer Firm
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'firm_type': 'Consulting engineering firm', 'relationship_to_client': 'Prime consultant to Client X', 'relationship_to_owner_y': 'No direct relationship'}
caseinvolvement: The consulting engineering firm that employs Engineer A and through which construction observation services are delivered to Client X
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:29.170852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:29.170852+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'contracted_with', 'target': 'Client X'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'Owner Y'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.754769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ES Consulting Employer Intermediary Safety Coordination Owner Y
type: EmployerIntermediarySafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: ES Consulting
obligationclass: Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer A's escalated report of the observed safety issues
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.759585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ES Consulting Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Owner Y Safety
type: FaithfulAgentReliabilityDeficiencyBoardNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: ES Consulting's failure to act as a reliable intermediary would trigger Engineer A's conditional direct notification obligation to Owner Y
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.8
constrainedentity: ES Consulting
constraintclass: Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case precedent on employer intermediary reliability
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer A's escalation report regarding Owner Y's adjacent property safety issues
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.761535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ES Consulting Prime Consultant Superior Position Deference Coordination
type: PrimeConsultantSuperiorPositionDeferenceinMulti-PartyProjectCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prime Consultant Superior Position Deference in Multi-Party Project Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: ES Consulting's role as prime consultant receiving Engineer A's report of adjacent property safety issues and coordinating the appropriate response
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: ES Consulting
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.762377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked for ES Consulting Role
type: EmployerIntermediarySafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: ES Consulting's role as employer intermediary
appliedto: Observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: ES Consulting Employer Firm
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.758709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer-Citizen-Action-Standard
type: EngineerCitizenActionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional consensus
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Citizen Action Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Citizen Action Standard
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating whether to take action beyond formal professional channels given the absence of a direct client relationship with Owner Y
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.752929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer-Dissent-Framework-Instance
type: EngineerDissentFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (accumulated through BER case decisions)
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Framework for Engineer Conscientious Refusal and Scope-of-Responsibility Limits
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Dissent Framework
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining the limits of Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.755699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer-Public-Safety-Escalation-Standard
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional consensus
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: Engineer A when deciding whether and how to act on observed safety issues on adjacent property
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.752491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer-Public-Safety-Escalation-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (accumulated through BER case decisions)
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms on Engineer Duty to Escalate Public Safety Concerns
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's obligations regarding adjacent construction site hazards
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.755446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer-Safety-Recommendation-Rejection-Standard
type: EngineerSafetyRecommendationRejectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional consensus
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
sourcetext: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
usedby: Engineer A in determining how to act when no direct relationship exists with Owner Y or the adjacent subcontractor
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.752791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Adjacent Third-Party Safety Disclosure Owner Y
type: AdjacentThird-PartyPropertySafetyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Adjacent Third-Party Property Safety Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon observation of the potential safety issues during the performance of construction observation services for Client X
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.759312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Citizen Action Employer Concurrence Boundary Owner Y Advocacy
type: EmployerFaithfulAgentCitizenActionBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Employer Faithful Agent Citizen Action Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions; BER case precedent on citizen-role advocacy boundary
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
temporalscope: After fulfilling formal professional reporting obligations through ES Consulting
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.761252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Citizen Action Stakeholder Consideration Owner Y Adjacent Safety
type: CitizenActionStakeholderConsiderationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's potential citizen-role action to alert Owner Y must be weighed against multi-stakeholder impacts including employer business interests
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Citizen Action Stakeholder Consideration Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case precedent on citizen action and stakeholder consideration
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
temporalscope: If and when Engineer A considers citizen-role advocacy beyond professional escalation
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.761395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Client Loyalty Faithful Agent Boundary Owner Y Safety Priority
type: ClientLoyaltyvs.PublicSafetyPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; faithful agent provisions; BER precedent on public safety primacy
sourcetext: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
temporalscope: Throughout the construction observation engagement for Client X
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.761092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Conditional Direct Written Notification Owner Y
type: WrittenThird-PartySafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
textreferences: Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.762635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
type: ConstructionObservationEngineerwithAdjacentThird-PartySafetyObservation
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:29.170852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:29.170852+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'ES Consulting'}
relationships: {'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'Owner Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'observes_safety_risk_on_property_of', 'target': 'Owner Y'}
relationships: {'type': 'provides_services_to', 'target': 'Client X'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Construction Observation Engineer with Adjacent Third-Party Safety Observation
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.754627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Corrective Action Follow-Through Monitoring Owner Y
type: CorrectiveActionFollow-ThroughMonitoringAfterVerbalOut-of-ScopeReportCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Corrective Action Follow-Through Monitoring After Verbal Out-of-Scope Report Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.762507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Employer Intermediary Channeling Owner Y Safety Escalation
type: No-RelationshipThird-PartySafetyEscalationChannelingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: No-Relationship Third-Party Safety Escalation Channeling Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions; BER case precedent on employer intermediary role
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
temporalscope: Immediately upon observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.760587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Employer Intermediary Escalation ES Consulting Owner Y Safety
type: EmployerIntermediarySafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
temporalscope: Promptly upon observation of the potential safety issues, before taking any unilateral direct action toward Owner Y
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.759453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary Client X Owner Y Safety
type: FaithfulAgentObligationScopeBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
textreferences: Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.762980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Client X Boundary Owner Y Safety
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
temporalscope: Throughout the performance of construction observation services for Client X
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.760169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Client X Boundary Owner Y Safety Scope
type: FaithfulAgentObligationScopeBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Priority Sequencing Client X Owner Y
type: FaithfulAgentPrioritySequencingBeforeExternalEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Priority Sequencing Before External Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A must balance faithful agent duty to Client X with the safety disclosure obligation to Owner Y as an unrelated adjacent third party
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.762242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Escalation Calibration Owner Y Adjacent Safety Risk
type: GraduatedEscalationCalibratedtoDangerImminenceandEmploymentContextConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The observed safety issues are described as 'potential' — not confirmed imminent — requiring proportionate rather than full-bore multi-authority escalation as the initial response
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence and Employment Context Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER graduated escalation precedent
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: From the moment of observation through resolution of the safety concern
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.760723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Calibration Owner Y
type: ImminentvsNon-ImminentRiskEscalationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.763237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Incidental Adjacent Property Safety Observation
type: IncidentalObservationOut-of-ScopeSafetyDeficiencyIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A is performing construction observation for Client X through ES Consulting and incidentally observes safety issues on adjacent property belonging to Owner Y
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Observation of potential safety issues from subcontractor work on adjacent Owner Y property during performance of construction observation services for Client X
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.759174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Owner Y Adjacent Property
type: IncidentalObservationOut-of-ScopeSafetyDeficiencyIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Engineer A observes potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property while performing contracted construction observation services for Client X through ES Consulting
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues from subcontractor work on Owner Y's adjacent property during contracted construction observation for Client X
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.768571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification Owner Y Before Regulatory Escalation
type: NewOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.78
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
textreferences: Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.763110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Safety Disclosure Duty Recognition Owner Y
type: No-Contractual-NexusThird-PartySafetyDisclosureDutyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Safety Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Engineer A has no direct relationship with Owner Y, whose adjacent property is the site of the observed safety issues
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: BER analysis of whether Engineer A's lack of relationship with Owner Y affects the safety disclosure obligation
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
textreferences: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.768838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A No-Nexus Direct Notification Owner Y Conditional
type: No-Contractual-NexusThird-PartyDirectSafetyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Direct Safety Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Conditional on ES Consulting and/or Client X failing to take adequate corrective action after being informed of the observed safety issues
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.759716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A No-Nexus Third-Party Duty Recognition Owner Y
type: No-Contractual-NexusThird-PartySafetyDisclosureDutyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Safety Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Owner Y is explicitly identified as a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, nor Client X has any direct relationship
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the safety disclosure duty to Owner Y exists despite no direct relationship between Engineer A, ES Consulting, Client X, and Owner Y
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
textreferences: Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.761955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Response
type: Out-of-ScopeAdjacentSafetyObservationNon-MandatoryResponseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Response Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Upon observation of potential safety issues on adjacent property during contracted construction observation services
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.764760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer
type: Scope-LimitedSub-ConsultantEngineerwithIncidentalSafetyObservation
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'scope': 'Construction observation for Client X', 'adjacent_relationship': 'None — no contractual or professional relationship with adjacent property owner'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:59.815996+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adjacent_observer', 'target': 'Adjacent Third-Party Property Owner Stakeholder'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client X'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'ES Consulting'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Scope-Limited Sub-Consultant Engineer with Incidental Safety Observation
sourcetext: Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues in connection with the adjacent construction project
textreferences: Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues in connection with the adjacent construction project
textreferences: bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X
textreferences: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.756686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Site Safety Disclosure Obligation
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyObservationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A observes potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent construction site while lawfully present performing Client X construction observation services
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.1, I.4; Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Disclosure Constraint
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Upon observation of potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.760445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Site Safety Observation
type: AdjacentPropertySafetyObservationWithoutClientRelationshipState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A observes the adjacent site safety issues through the conclusion of the Board's analysis
affectedparties: Adjacent property owner
affectedparties: Adjacent site workers
affectedparties: Client X
affectedparties: ES Consulting
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
stateclass: Adjacent Property Safety Observation Without Client Relationship State
subject: Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues on the adjacent construction project while performing construction observation for Client X
terminatedby: Engineer A taking voluntary responsive action or concluding the engagement
textreferences: Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues in connection with the adjacent construction project
textreferences: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
textreferences: this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
triggeringevent: Engineer A's incidental observation of unsafe conditions on the adjacent construction project during performance of services for Client X
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.755862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Judgment Calibration
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyObservationPersonalJudgmentCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Judgment Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Decision-making about whether to bring observed adjacent-property safety issues to the attention of ES Consulting and Client X
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.767500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Permissible Employer Escalation Adjacent Safety Observation
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyObservationPermissibleEmployerEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Permissible Employer Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Upon observation of potential safety issues on adjacent property, if Engineer A elects to respond
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.765049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Personal Conscience Discretion on Adjacent Site Safety
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyObservationPersonalConscienceDiscretionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's recognition of the adjacent site safety issues through any voluntary responsive action or conclusion of engagement
affectedparties: Adjacent site superintendent
affectedparties: Adjacent site workers
affectedparties: Client X
affectedparties: ES Consulting
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:56.265940+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Conscience Discretion State
subject: Engineer A's ethical posture regarding the adjacent site safety observation — permissible but not obligatory responsive action
terminatedby: Engineer A taking voluntary action or determining no action is warranted
textreferences: One potential response could include bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X
textreferences: To do otherwise would make Engineer A accountable for a wide range of public duties and responsibilities that are beyond the bounds of reason
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Board determination that the out-of-scope safety observation creates a personal conscience right but not a mandatory ethical obligation
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.756051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Potential Risk Written Notification Owner Y Adjacent Property
type: PotentialSafetyRiskWrittenNotificationWithoutInvestigationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The safety issues are 'potential' rather than confirmed imminent; written notification is required but full investigation is not mandated by the ethical constraint
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A / ES Consulting
constraintclass: Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Without Investigation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4, III.1.b; BER case precedent on potential safety risk notification
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Upon escalation of the observed safety concern through ES Consulting
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.760879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Nexus Determination
type: ProfessionalScopeofResponsibilitySafetyObligationNexusDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Nexus Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Engineer A observes potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property while contracted for construction observation on Client X's property
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that construction observation services for Client X do not extend professional scope of responsibility to adjacent Owner Y's property
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
textreferences: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.767638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Proportional Escalation Calibration Owner Y Safety Risk
type: ProportionalMulti-AuthorityEscalationCalibratedtoRiskImminenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Proportional Multi-Authority Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon assessment of the imminence and severity of the observed safety issues
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.760004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Proportionality Calibration Adjacent Non-Imminent vs Imminent Owner Y Risk
type: ProportionalityCalibrationBetweenImminentandNon-ImminentStructuralRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The observed safety issues are described as 'potential' — the proportionality constraint requires calibrated rather than maximum-intensity response as the initial step
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Proportionality Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER proportionality precedent contrasting imminent and non-imminent structural risks
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: From observation through resolution of the safety concern
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.761672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Risk Imminence Proportional Escalation Owner Y Safety
type: RiskImminenceandBreadthCalibratedEscalationScopeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Risk Imminence and Breadth Calibrated Escalation Scope Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.762844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Scope Boundary Recognition Adjacent Property Safety Observation
type: Non-ContractualSafetyObservationScopeBoundaryRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A performing contracted construction observation services for Client X observes potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property arising from subcontractor work.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Contractual Safety Observation Scope Boundary Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
temporalscope: Upon observation of potential safety issues on adjacent property
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.766142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Scope Non-Excuse Adjacent Property Owner Y Safety Observation
type: ScopeLimitationNon-ExculpationforKnownSafetyRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation for Known Safety Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:14.756429+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case precedent on scope limitation and safety observation
sourcetext: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
temporalscope: During the performance of construction observation services for Client X
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.760312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Scope Non-Excuse Adjacent Property Safety Owner Y
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforAdjacentThird-PartySafetyObservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:43:40.857216+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Adjacent Third-Party Safety Observation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
temporalscope: Upon observation of the potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.759849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Scope Non-Excuse Adjacent Safety Recognition
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforSafetyDisclosureRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A's contracted scope covers only Client X's project, yet safety issues are observed on adjacent Owner Y property
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.761803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Sub-Consultant Employer-Chain Escalation Sequencing
type: Sub-ConsultantEmployer-ChainSafetyEscalationSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Consultant Employer-Chain Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Navigation of the three-tier escalation chain (Engineer A → ES Consulting → Client X → Owner Y/authorities) arising from the sub-consultant employment structure
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:45:20.356253+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.762107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A Sub-Consultant Employer-Chain Safety Escalation Sequencing ES Consulting Owner Y
type: Sub-ConsultantEmployer-ChainSafetyEscalationSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Consultant Employer-Chain Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Engineer A as sub-consultant through ES Consulting observing out-of-scope safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:53:04.309748+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.768704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A – Client X Active Construction Observation Engagement
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the construction observation services engagement
affectedparties: Client X
affectedparties: ES Consulting
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:26.557632+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:26.557632+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Professional relationship between Engineer A / ES Consulting and Client X
terminatedby: Completion or termination of the construction observation engagement
textreferences: Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
triggeringevent: Engagement of ES Consulting by Client X for construction observation services
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.753425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A – No Relationship with Owner Y Obligation Boundary
type: ProfessionalObligationBoundaryDeterminationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment of observation through Engineer A's decision about whether and how to act
affectedparties: Client X
affectedparties: ES Consulting
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Owner Y
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:26.557632+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:26.557632+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
stateclass: Professional Obligation Boundary Determination State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Engineer A determines and executes an appropriate course of action (notification, escalation, or documented determination of no actionable obligation)
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.753876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A's engagement by ES Consulting starts construction observation services for Client X
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Engineer A's observation of safety issues during construction observation services for Client X
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Escalate Internally to ES Consulting and Client X Superiors
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Escalate Internally to ES Consulting and Client X Superiors (Action 4) → Take Direct Action with Adjacent Site Parties (Action 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Ethics Bodies Unlimited Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Engineer A Case
type: UnlimitedSafetyScopeImpositionProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Unlimited Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At the time of ethics review determination regarding Engineer A's obligations
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.764897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Excessive Defense Costs Incurred
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked for Engineer A Client X Relationship
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction observation services for Client X
appliedto: Observed safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
balancingwith: Non-Contractual Third-Party Safety Observation Duty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.758262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

III.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
type: IncidentalObservationDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property during contracted work for Client X
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer
principleclass: Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.757804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: Engineer A in determining professional obligations toward Owner Y and the public
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.754459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

No Direct Relationship Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Non-Contractual Safety Observation Scope Boundary Recognition Engineer A Adjacent Property
type: Non-ContractualSafetyObservationScopeBoundaryRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:50:27.843700+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
obligationclass: Non-Contractual Safety Observation Scope Boundary Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At the time of ethics review and determination
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.765193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Non-Contractual Third-Party Safety Observation Duty Invoked by Engineer A
type: Non-ContractualThird-PartySafetyObservationDuty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Owner Y's adjacent property
appliedto: Subcontractor safety issues on Owner Y's property
balancingwith: Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer
principleclass: Non-Contractual Third-Party Safety Observation Duty
sourcetext: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.758556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Observe Adjacent Safety Issues
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769264
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Action Engineer A Owner Y
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyObservationPersonalConscienceNon-MandatoryActionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Conscience Non-Mandatory Action Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion; BER Case No. 82-5 (personal conscience right vs. mandatory duty)
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's construction observation engagement for Client X
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: To do otherwise would make Engineer A accountable for a wide range of public duties and responsibilities that are beyond the bounds of reason.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.766426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Discretionary Response Applied to Engineer A
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyObservationDiscretionaryResponsePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Adjacent property safety observation response
appliedto: Employer notification decision for out-of-scope hazard
balancingwith: Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
balancingwith: Non-Contractual Third-Party Safety Observation Duty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer
principleclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Discretionary Response Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: To do otherwise would make Engineer A accountable for a wide range of public duties and responsibilities that are beyond the bounds of reason.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.764268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Employer-Channeled Response Engineer A ES Consulting Client X Owner Y
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyObservationEmployer-ChanneledResponsePermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A observed potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent construction site; the Board identified employer-channeled escalation as one permissible response pathway
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Employer-Channeled Response Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion; NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: During Engineer A's construction observation engagement for Client X
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.766580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Owner Y Adjacent Third-Party Property Owner
type: AdjacentThird-PartyPropertyOwnerStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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"}
caseinvolvement: 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
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:29.170852+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:29.170852+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'Client X'}
relationships: {'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'ES Consulting'}
relationships: {'type': 'no_direct_relationship_with', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'property_adjacent_to', 'target': 'Client X project site'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Adjacent Third-Party Property Owner Stakeholder
sourcetext: a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
textreferences: a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.754912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Perform Construction Observation Services
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Perform Construction Observation Services (Action 1) → Safety Issue Observed by Engineer (Event 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Potential Unconfirmed Safety Risk – Adjacent Subcontractor Work
type: PotentialSafetyRiskWithoutConfirmedImminentHarmState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's observation until the risk is confirmed, mitigated, or dismissed
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public in proximity
affectedparties: Owner Y
affectedparties: Workers on Owner Y's site
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:26.557632+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:26.557632+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor
stateclass: Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm State
subject: The nature of the observed safety issues — described as 'potential' — on the Owner Y construction site
terminatedby: Formal assessment confirming or ruling out the hazard; corrective action by the subcontractor or Owner Y
textreferences: Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor
triggeringevent: Engineer A's observation of potential safety issues during construction observation services
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.753733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Prior BER Precedents Applicable
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Prior BER Precedents Applicable (Event 4) → Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk (Action 3) — informed ethical resolution
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A for Owner Y Hazard
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client X
appliedto: ES Consulting
appliedto: Owner Y
appliedto: Potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: Proactive disclosure obligation overrides the passive interpretation of scope-of-work limitations; the engineer must act, not merely refrain from acting
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.758860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Product Safety Refusal Right Applied to BER 65-12 Engineers
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Unsafe product processing and production refusal
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusers
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.764106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Professional Competence Invoked as Basis for Safety Identification Duty
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Professional expertise as basis for public safety duty
appliedto: Safety risk identification obligation
balancingwith: Scope-Bounded Public Safety Obligation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.764409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Activation Engineer A Owner Y Adjacent Property
type: ProfessionalScopeofResponsibilitySafetyObligationActivationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional Ethics Bodies
constraintclass: Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Activation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion; BER Case Nos. 65-12, 82-5, 88-6 (distinguished)
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout the Board's ethical review of Engineer A's situation
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.766761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Proportional Escalation Obligation Invoked for Engineer A Adjacent Property Safety Concern
type: ProportionalEscalationObligationCalibratedtoImminenceandBreadthofRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Potential safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property
balancingwith: Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.758404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Public-Interest-Balancing-Framework
type: PublicInterestBalancingFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional ethics consensus
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Interest Balancing Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:38:15.177458+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Public Interest Balancing Framework
sourcetext: Engineer A observes potential safety issues
textreferences: Engineer A observes potential safety issues
textreferences: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
usedby: Engineer A and ES Consulting in deliberating on appropriate response to observed safety issues
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.753271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Public Safety Paramount Obligation Scope Limits Engineer A General Principle
type: UnlimitedPersonalSafetyScopeImpositionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Professional Ethics Bodies / Engineering Profession
constraintclass: Unlimited Personal Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: General principle applicable across all engineering practice contexts
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.767338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Primary Engineering Obligation
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Adjacent construction safety observation
appliedto: Defense industry cost reporting
appliedto: Environmental compliance reporting
appliedto: Product safety refusal
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Scope-Bounded Public Safety Obligation Principle
balancingwith: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusers
invokedby: BER 82-5 Defense Industry Engineer
invokedby: BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: An engineer's role in protecting the public health and safety is fundamental and basic to the overall ethical responsibilities of all engineers.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.763422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Regarding Owner Y Safety
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Potential safety issues observed on Owner Y's adjacent property caused by subcontractor work
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.757655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.553864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550946
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.550997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.551424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Refuse Participation in Unsafe Product Production
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Report Excessive Costs to Employer
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Report Overflow Capacity Problems Internally
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:16:40.554355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Safety Issue Observed by Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Safety Issue Observed by Engineer (Event 2) → Decide Whether to Ignore Adjacent Risk (Action 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Scope-Bounded Public Safety Obligation Applied to Engineer A Adjacent Observation
type: Scope-BoundedPublicSafetyObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Adjacent third-party construction safety observation
appliedto: Out-of-scope safety hazard response determination
balancingwith: Non-Contractual Third-Party Safety Observation Duty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer
principleclass: Scope-Bounded Public Safety Obligation Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The Board is of the view that this is a key factual distinction from the earlier BER cases.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.763584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense Invoked in Engineer A Adjacent Property Scenario
type: Scope-of-WorkLimitationasIncompleteEthicalDefense
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Potential safety issues on Owner Y's adjacent property observed incidentally during Client X work
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.757948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Sewage Overflow Capacity Reached
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Supervisory Inaction Complicity Applied to BER 88-6 City Engineer
type: SupervisoryInactionComplicityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Environmental overflow capacity violation reporting
appliedto: External escalation after failed internal remedies
appliedto: Municipal environmental compliance obligation
balancingwith: Confidentiality of Employer Information in Public Agency Context
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 88-6 City Engineer Director of Public Works
principleclass: Supervisory Inaction Complicity Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.763961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Take Direct Action with Adjacent Site Parties
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Invoked Regarding Owner Y
type: Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Owner Y as the property owner of the adjacent site where safety issues were observed
balancingwith: Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:42:04.297486+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A Construction Observation Engineer
principleclass: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
sourcetext: a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.758112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Unlimited Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Engineer A Adjacent Property
type: UnlimitedPersonalSafetyScopeImpositionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional Ethics Bodies
constraintclass: Unlimited Personal Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:52:42.207892+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Discussion; BER Case precedent on scope of professional safety obligations
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's professional engagement with Client X and ES Consulting
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.766288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Unsafe Product Conditions Present
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.769658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Whistleblower-Protection-Framework-Instance
type: WhistleblowerProtectionFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (accumulated through BER case decisions)
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Whistleblowing and Conscientious Objection
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Whistleblower Protection Framework
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the ethical duty or right of the engineer became a matter of personal conscience
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing BER Cases 65-12 and 82-5 and their applicability to Engineer A
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.755573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Applied to BER 82-5 Defense Engineer
type: WhistleblowingasPersonalConscienceRightWithoutMandatoryDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Defense industry subcontractor cost and delay reporting
appliedto: Post-employer-rejection advocacy decision
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 139
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 139
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T10:48:17.782690+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER 82-5 Defense Industry Engineer
principleclass: Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 139 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.763794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

all prior BER cases (65-12, 82-5, 88-6) before present case involving Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

being relieved of responsibility (event 5 in BER 88-6) before engineer continued to work as city engineer/director of public works
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

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)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

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)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

discussing problem privately with city council (event 2 in BER 88-6) before being warned by city administrator (event 3 in BER 88-6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction

noticing overflow capacity problems (event 1 in BER 88-6) before discussing problem privately with city council members (event 2 in BER 88-6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T11:01:04.770105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 139 Extraction