ProEthica Case 140 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.743751
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER_Case_00-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 00-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Primary analogical precedent for determining the scope and intensity of Engineer A's public safety escalation obligations; distinguished from present case on grounds of imminence of danger, engineer's public employment role, and breadth of required response
version: 2000
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER_Case_07-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 07-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: More recently, in BER Case No. 07-10, Engineer A designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: More recently, in BER Case No. 07-10, Engineer A designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: The Board decided that Engineer A had fulfilled his ethical obligation by notifying the town supervisor, but that Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Secondary analogical precedent illustrating graduated written notification obligations and the duty to monitor and escalate when initial verbal notification proves insufficient; used to support the Board's reasoning about proportionate response to safety concerns of limited imminence
version: 2007
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.747613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER_Case_89-7
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 89-7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
textreferences: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited by the Board in BER Case 00-5 establishing foundational principles that public health and safety issues are at the core of engineering ethics and that engineers must not bow to public pressure when great dangers are present
version: 1989
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.747770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER_Case_90-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 90-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
textreferences: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited by the Board in BER Case 00-5 establishing foundational principles that public health and safety issues are at the core of engineering ethics and that engineers must not bow to public pressure when great dangers are present
version: 1990
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.747904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER_Case_92-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 92-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
textreferences: Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Earlier precedent cited by the Board in BER Case 00-5 establishing foundational principles that public health and safety issues are at the core of engineering ethics and that engineers must not bow to public pressure when great dangers are present
version: 1992
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.748039
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER Case No. 00-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER Case No. 07-10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER Case No. 89-7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER Case No. 90-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

BER Case No. 92-6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Barn Structural Modification Occurs
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Duty_Upon_Discovery_Of_Hazard_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Structure transitions from as-designed safe condition to modified potentially unsafe condition; original engineer's duty is reactivated upon discovery even years after project completion
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Discovery_And_Response
creates obligation: Notify_Current_Owner_Of_Hazard
creates obligation: Notify_Relevant_Authorities_If_Owner_Unresponsive
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: After barn sale, at least four years prior to engineer's notification (BER Case 07-10)
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: medium
comment: In BER Case 07-10, a structural modification is made to a barn after it has been built and sold, creating a safety hazard that the original engineer later discovers. This event initiates a timeline spanning at least four years before the engineer provides belated safety notification.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Barricades Removed By Unknown Party
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Escalation_Triggered_By_Obstruction_Constraint
activates constraint: Immediate_Remediation_Required_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Safety measure nullified; public re-exposed to known hazard; engineer's obligation escalates from protective action to enforcement-seeking action
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Removal_And_Response
creates obligation: Escalate_To_Higher_Authority
creates obligation: Immediately_Reinstall_Barricades
creates obligation: Seek_Enforcement_Mechanism_To_Prevent_Recurrence
emergency status: critical
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: During BER Case 00-5 escalation sequence, after initial barricade erection
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: critical
comment: In BER Case 00-5, bridge closure barricades erected by the engineer are removed by an unknown party, reinstating public access to the unsafe bridge and requiring the engineer to reinstall them. This event demonstrates that safety measures can be actively undermined, escalating the engineer's duty.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Bridge Closure Barricades Erected
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Local Government Engineer, BER Case 00-5
foreseen unintended effects: Possibility that barricades could be removed or circumvented by the public
foreseen unintended effects: Residents required to take a 10-mile detour, causing public inconvenience and potential community backlash
fulfills obligation text: Duty to act decisively when life safety is at immediate risk
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
fulfills obligation text: Obligation as public employee to take immediate protective action for imminent structural danger
guided by principle text: Immediate action proportional to imminent risk
guided by principle text: Professional responsibility as public employee
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and urgent
intended outcome: Immediately protect the public from imminent danger of bridge collapse by physically preventing access pending repair or replacement
requires capability text: Authority to order public safety measures as local government engineer
requires capability text: Emergency response decision-making
requires capability text: Structural hazard assessment
temporal marker: BER Case 00-5 reference - June 2000, within the hour of receiving bridge inspector's call
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: true
comment: In BER Case 00-5, upon receiving the bridge inspector's call identifying critically rotten pilings, Engineer A immediately directed the erection of barricades and closed bridge signs within the hour on a Friday afternoon, preventing public access to the dangerous structure.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Bridge Deterioration Discovered
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
activates constraint: Structural_Integrity_Duty_Constraint
causes state change: Bridge transitions from functional infrastructure to known hazard; engineer's role shifts from maintenance to emergency response and escalating intervention
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Structural_Risk
creates obligation: Implement_Protective_Measures
creates obligation: Notify_Authorities
creates obligation: Pursue_Permanent_Remediation
emergency status: critical
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Prior to June 2000 (BER Case 00-5 reference point)
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: critical
comment: In BER Case 00-5, a bridge is found to be in a deteriorating structural condition, triggering a series of escalating safety responses by the local government engineer. This discovery initiates the graduated ethical response timeline used as precedent.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Bridge Deterioration Discovered (Event 4) + Bridge Closure Barricades Erected (Action 6) → Barricades Removed By Unknown Party (Event 6)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: In BER Case 00-5, bridge closure barricades erected by the engineer are removed by an unknown party, creating an immediate renewed public safety risk on a structure already identified as critically deteriorated
cause: Bridge Deterioration Discovered (Event 4) + Bridge Closure Barricades Erected (Action 6)
counterfactual: If barricades had not been erected, there would be nothing to remove; if continuous monitoring had been in place, removal would likely have been prevented or immediately detected and reversed
effect: Barricades Removed By Unknown Party (Event 6)
necessary factors: Absence of continuous monitoring or physical security preventing unauthorized removal
necessary factors: Barricades having been erected in the first place following bridge deterioration discovery
necessary factors: Physical accessibility of the barricades to unauthorized parties
necessary factors: Unknown party's volitional act of removing the barricades
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Unknown party who removed barricades (primary); Engineer A or public works authority (secondary, for absence of security measures)
sufficient factors: Erected barricades + accessible location + no continuous security = sufficient conditions for unauthorized removal to occur
sufficient factors: The unknown party's independent volitional act is the proximate cause, but the lack of security measures is a contributing sufficient factor
within agent control: false
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Case 140 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 9
event count: 7
total elements: 16
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Bridge Closure Barricades Erec
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Design Scaffolding Accommodati
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Accepts Design Assi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Escalate to DOT and Law Enforc
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Non-Engineer Orders Crutch Pil
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Notify Supervisor of Hazard
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Obtain Bridge Replacement Auth
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Reinstall Permanent Barricades
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

CausalLink_Supervisor Directs Scaffolding
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Commercial Vehicles Observed Illegally
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Professional_Knowledge_Obligation
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Awareness_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from uninformed bystander to informed professional with personal knowledge of hazard; ethical duty clock begins
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Safety_Risk_To_Scaffold_Design
creates obligation: Duty_To_Report_Known_Hazard
creates obligation: Notify_Relevant_Authorities
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Prior to and during scaffolding assignment (ongoing)
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A personally observes commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway during his daily commute, both prior to and during his scaffolding assignment. This repeated observation creates direct personal knowledge of an ongoing safety hazard.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 1
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A should immediately notify verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board issued a formal recommendation that Engineer A must immediately provide verbal notification — and written notification if necessary — to the immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction regarding the safety hazard posed by commercial vehicles passing by during ramp inspection and repair work. This conclusion addresses Engineer A's duty to report the observed hazard through the appropriate internal chain of command before proceeding with scaffolding design, consistent with the public welfare paramount principle and the written documentation requirement.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A should notify the supervisor verbally and in writing if necessary, Engineer A's ethical obligation is triggered not by the formal acceptance of the scaffolding design assignment but by the prior accumulation of repeated personal commute observations of illegal commercial vehicle use on the parkway. The transformation from personal observation to professional duty occurs at the moment Engineer A possesses knowledge that a foreseeable safety hazard exists in a domain where Engineer A holds professional competence — namely, construction site safety on a project to which Engineer A is professionally connected. Because Engineer A is already employed by OPQ Construction on the parkway ramp inspection and repair contract, the commute observations are not merely incidental civilian sightings; they are observations made by a professional engineer with direct knowledge of the worksite context. The assignment of the scaffolding design task therefore does not create the duty — it merely makes the pre-existing duty actionable and urgent. This distinction matters because it forecloses any argument that Engineer A could ethically defer disclosure until after completing the design, or that the duty arises only within the formal scope of the assigned task.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: III.2.b.
cited provision2: II.1.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should notify the supervisor stops short of addressing a critical downstream constraint: Engineer A is ethically prohibited from completing, signing, or sealing the scaffolding design plans if the commercial vehicle hazard remains unacknowledged and unaddressed at the time of finalization. Code provision III.2.b. prohibits an engineer from completing or sealing plans not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. A scaffolding design for a restricted-clearance parkway ramp that does not account for the foreseeable — if illegal — intrusion of commercial vehicles into the work zone cannot be certified as conforming to applicable safety standards, because the design's safety assumptions rest on an enforcement condition that Engineer A's own observations demonstrate is unreliable. This means Engineer A's notification obligation is not merely procedural courtesy to the supervisor; it is a prerequisite to the lawful exercise of Engineer A's professional seal. If the supervisor fails to act and the hazard remains unresolved, Engineer A cannot ethically finalize the design without either incorporating protective design modifications or escalating the matter to authorities with enforcement jurisdiction. The Board's recommendation of written notification 'if necessary' implicitly acknowledges this escalation pathway but does not make its connection to the sealing prohibition explicit.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation that Engineer A notify the supervisor is correctly calibrated as a first step, but the graduated escalation framework established by BER 00-5 and BER 07-10 implies that Engineer A bears a conditional but real obligation to escalate directly to the state department of transportation or law enforcement if the supervisor fails to act. In BER 00-5, the Board affirmed that an engineer must pursue a full-bore multi-authority campaign when a non-engineer authority overrides a legitimate safety closure. In BER 07-10, the Board required written notification to the town supervisor and, if unresolved, escalation to county and state building officials. The present case involves a dual-stakeholder risk — construction workers and passing members of the public — that is structurally analogous to both precedents. The state DOT is simultaneously the ultimate client of OPQ Construction and the authority responsible for parkway use enforcement. This dual role means that notifying the DOT through proper channels is not an act of disloyalty to OPQ Construction but rather a fulfillment of the contractual and public safety framework within which OPQ Construction itself operates. Engineer A should understand from the outset that supervisor non-response does not terminate the ethical obligation — it triggers the next level of the escalation hierarchy, with the DOT and, if necessary, law enforcement as the appropriate recipients of formal notification. The proportionality principle counsels that this escalation need not be as aggressive as the BER 00-5 multi-authority campaign, but it must be real and timely, not indefinitely deferred.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion focuses on notification but does not address whether Engineer A should proactively present alternative scaffolding design configurations that account for foreseeable commercial vehicle intrusion as part of the initial design submission. From a professional competence and proactive risk disclosure standpoint, Engineer A's ethical obligations extend beyond reporting the hazard to also integrating the hazard into the engineering solution itself. A scaffolding design that assumes perfect enforcement of the commercial vehicle prohibition is a design built on a demonstrably unreliable assumption. Engineer A, having observed repeated violations, possesses site-specific knowledge that a competent engineer is obligated to incorporate into the design process. This does not mean Engineer A must unilaterally redesign the scaffolding for commercial vehicle clearance without supervisor authorization — the clearance constraints of the parkway ramp may make such redesign physically impossible — but it does mean Engineer A should present the supervisor with a range of corrective options: enhanced traffic control measures, physical barriers, modified work scheduling to avoid peak commercial vehicle intrusion periods, or coordination with law enforcement for enforcement presence during construction. Presenting these alternatives as part of the initial hazard notification satisfies both the faithful agent obligation to OPQ Construction and the public welfare paramount principle, and it demonstrates the professional integrity and moral courage that virtue ethics demands of a competent engineer in Engineer A's position.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: A nuance the Board did not explicitly address is the tension between the Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold — which requires a credible, substantiated basis before triggering formal reporting — and the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle, given that Engineer A's evidence consists entirely of informal personal observations rather than documented enforcement records or traffic studies. However, this tension resolves in favor of disclosure for two reasons. First, the threshold for triggering internal supervisor notification is materially lower than the threshold for external reporting to regulatory authorities; repeated personal observations by a professional engineer with direct worksite knowledge constitute a credible and substantiated basis for internal notification, even if they would not alone justify a formal complaint to a regulatory body. Second, the nature of the risk — potential worker fatalities and public casualties from a vehicle strike on scaffolding at a restricted-clearance ramp — is severe enough that the proportionality calculus favors early disclosure even under conditions of evidentiary uncertainty. The consequentialist concern that low probability of an actual strike might reduce the escalation obligation is answered by the severity of the potential harm: the combination of confined geometry, construction worker exposure, and passing public traffic creates a harm profile that overrides probability-discounting arguments. Engineer A's repeated observations, though informal, are sufficient to satisfy the good faith threshold for supervisor notification, and the severity of potential harm is sufficient to sustain that obligation even against arguments that the hazard is speculative.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's transformation from personal observer to professional actor occurs at the moment the scaffolding design assignment is accepted, not before. Prior to receiving the assignment, Engineer A's commute observations are personal knowledge with no direct nexus to a professional duty. The moment Engineer A is directed to design scaffolding for the parkway ramp, however, those same observations become professionally material safety data. The assignment creates the professional context that activates the obligation. Engineer A's knowledge of the illegal commercial vehicle pattern is now directly relevant to the safety of a structure Engineer A is being asked to design and certify. The transformation is therefore triggered by the assignment, not by the observation itself, though the observations remain the evidentiary basis for the duty once triggered.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: Engineer A is ethically prohibited from completing, signing, or sealing the scaffolding design plans if the commercial vehicle hazard has not been formally communicated to the supervisor and the supervisor has had a reasonable opportunity to respond, regardless of whether the hazard has been fully resolved. Code provision III.2.b. prohibits signing plans not in conformity with safety requirements. A scaffolding design that does not account for — or at minimum formally acknowledge — the foreseeable risk of illegal commercial vehicle incursion cannot be certified as conforming to safety requirements. The prohibition is not contingent on the hazard being verified by enforcement data; Engineer A's repeated personal observations constitute a credible, good-faith basis for the concern. If the supervisor has been notified and has taken no corrective action, Engineer A must not finalize the plans until either the hazard is addressed or Engineer A has escalated appropriately. Sealing plans under those circumstances would make Engineer A complicit in a foreseeable safety failure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer A does bear an ethical obligation to notify the state department of transportation directly if OPQ Construction's supervisor fails to act on the reported commercial vehicle hazard, but this obligation is sequenced and conditional. The Board's conclusion establishes supervisor notification as the first required step. If the supervisor fails to act within a reasonable time — particularly given that the DOT is both the ultimate client and the authority with jurisdiction over parkway enforcement — Engineer A's obligation escalates. The DOT is uniquely positioned to address the enforcement gap because it controls both the construction contract and the parkway's regulatory framework. Bypassing the supervisor prematurely would undermine the employment relationship without cause, but allowing the hazard to persist indefinitely because the supervisor is unresponsive would subordinate public safety to organizational hierarchy in a manner the NSPE Code does not permit. The escalation path runs: supervisor, then DOT, then law enforcement if necessary.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer A should proactively present alternative scaffolding design configurations that account for foreseeable illegal commercial vehicle clearance as part of the initial design submission, but this design adaptation does not substitute for the separate obligation to formally disclose the hazard to the supervisor. The two duties are parallel, not alternative. Presenting a design that accommodates the worst-case clearance scenario demonstrates professional competence and reduces immediate physical risk. However, silently redesigning without disclosing the underlying enforcement gap leaves the supervisor, the DOT, and the public unaware of an ongoing illegal traffic pattern that poses risks beyond the scaffolding itself — including risks to other road users and future construction phases. The proactive design alternative satisfies the engineering duty of care; the formal disclosure satisfies the public safety reporting obligation. Both are required.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle do not fundamentally conflict in this case, but they do create a sequencing tension. Engineer A can remain a faithful agent to OPQ Construction while simultaneously fulfilling the public safety obligation — provided the safety concern is raised through proper internal channels before the design is finalized. The conflict becomes real and irresolvable only if the supervisor directs Engineer A to proceed with a design that Engineer A has determined cannot be safely executed given the commercial vehicle hazard. At that point, the Public Welfare Paramount principle unambiguously overrides the Faithful Agent Obligation. The NSPE Code does not permit the faithful agent role to be used as a shield against public safety disclosure. The tension is therefore not a true conflict in the initial phase, but becomes one if the employer refuses to engage with the safety concern.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold principle and the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle are in moderate tension here, but the tension resolves in favor of disclosure at the supervisor level. Engineer A's observations are informal and personal, not derived from enforcement records or traffic studies. This evidentiary limitation is relevant to the question of whether Engineer A should immediately escalate to external authorities — it counsels against premature external reporting. However, it does not suppress the obligation to disclose internally. The Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold requires only that Engineer A have a credible, reasonable basis for the concern, not that the concern be verified by formal data. Repeated personal observation of a pattern of illegal commercial vehicle use on the same parkway where scaffolding will be erected satisfies that threshold. The principle tension therefore affects the timing and target of disclosure — internal first, external only if unaddressed — rather than the existence of the disclosure obligation itself.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The Proportional Escalation Obligation does not conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle in a way that undermines Engineer A's core duty. Rather, proportionality calibrates the method and urgency of the response, not whether a response is required. The parkway scaffolding hazard is less certain and less immediately catastrophic than the condemned bridge in BER 00-5, but it involves simultaneous risk to both construction workers and passing members of the public — a dual-exposure profile that is ethically significant. The proportionality principle appropriately counsels that Engineer A begin with supervisor notification rather than immediately launching a multi-authority campaign. However, if the supervisor fails to act, the dual-exposure nature of the risk — workers and public simultaneously endangered — strengthens the case for rapid escalation to the DOT and law enforcement, potentially compressing the timeline between internal notification and external escalation compared to a single-population hazard.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The Written Documentation Requirement and the Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting principle are not in genuine conflict; they operate at different stages of the notification process. The Board's conclusion appropriately sequences verbal notification first, with written documentation to follow if necessary. This sequencing reflects contextual calibration — the hazard is foreseeable but not yet imminent, and a verbal conversation with the supervisor may promptly resolve the concern without requiring formal documentation. However, if the supervisor's response is ambiguous, dismissive, or absent, the Written Documentation Requirement activates immediately. Written documentation at that stage serves two functions: it creates an evidentiary record that Engineer A fulfilled the disclosure obligation, and it signals to the supervisor the seriousness with which Engineer A regards the concern. The contextual calibration principle therefore governs the initial approach; the written documentation requirement governs the follow-through if the initial approach is insufficient.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A does have a categorical duty to report the commercial vehicle hazard to the supervisor, and this duty is unconditional in the sense that it does not depend on the supervisor's likely response. The NSPE Code's mandate to hold public safety paramount functions as a deontological constraint — it is not a consequentialist calculation about whether reporting will produce a better outcome. Engineer A cannot permissibly reason that because the supervisor is unlikely to act, disclosure is pointless. The duty to disclose is owed to the public, not to the supervisor, and its fulfillment is measured by whether Engineer A acted, not by whether the supervisor responded. The categorical nature of the duty also means that uncertainty about the probability of a commercial vehicle strike does not diminish the obligation to report; it may affect the urgency of escalation beyond the supervisor, but it does not affect the threshold obligation to disclose.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the relatively low probability of an illegal commercial vehicle strike during the construction window does not reduce Engineer A's ethical obligation to notify the supervisor, though it does affect the calculus for external escalation. Consequentialist ethics requires weighing probability against magnitude of harm. Even a low-probability event that could result in worker fatalities and public casualties — a high-magnitude, irreversible harm — produces an expected harm value that is ethically non-trivial. Furthermore, the cost of disclosure to the supervisor is negligible compared to the potential harm prevented. The consequentialist calculus therefore strongly supports supervisor notification regardless of probability. The probability question becomes more relevant when assessing whether to escalate beyond the supervisor to the DOT or law enforcement, where the costs of action are higher and the marginal benefit depends more heavily on the likelihood of the hazard materializing before enforcement can be improved.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics standpoint, treating a personal commute observation as professionally actionable safety data is precisely what distinguishes a person of professional integrity from one who compartmentalizes personal and professional knowledge for self-protective reasons. A virtuous engineer does not draw an artificial boundary between what is observed as a private citizen and what is relevant as a licensed professional when the two domains intersect on a matter of public safety. The moral courage required here is not dramatic — Engineer A is not being asked to defy a direct order or blow the whistle publicly — but it is real: raising a concern that may be inconvenient, that is based on informal observation, and that may invite skepticism from the supervisor. Virtue ethics would hold that the engineer of good character acts on this concern not because the Code compels it, but because professional integrity and genuine concern for the safety of workers and the public make silence indefensible.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: The graduated escalation structure — supervisor first, then external authorities — reflects a principled hierarchy of duties that is defensible both deontologically and institutionally, but it carries a genuine risk of becoming ethically indefensible if the supervisor fails to act and Engineer A treats the initial notification as having discharged the full obligation. Comparing the present case with BER 00-5 and BER 07-10, the graduated approach is appropriate because the hazard here is foreseeable but not yet imminent, and the supervisor has not yet had an opportunity to respond. However, the BER 00-5 precedent demonstrates that procedural deference to organizational hierarchy cannot be maintained indefinitely when public safety is at stake — Engineer A in that case was required to escalate aggressively through multiple authorities when internal channels failed. The present case's graduated structure is therefore principled only if it is understood as a sequence with a defined escalation trigger, not as a permission to stop at the supervisor level if the supervisor is unresponsive.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer A had completed and sealed the scaffolding design without disclosing the commercial vehicle hazard, and a commercial vehicle subsequently struck the scaffolding injuring workers, Engineer A would bear personal ethical and professional liability — even though the illegal vehicle use is an external enforcement failure rather than a design defect. The basis for this liability is twofold. First, Code provision III.2.b. prohibits signing plans not in conformity with safety requirements; a design that Engineer A knew was exposed to a foreseeable, unaddressed hazard cannot be certified as conforming to safety requirements. Second, Engineer A's pre-existing knowledge of the illegal traffic pattern — acquired through repeated personal observation — means the hazard was not unforeseeable at the time of sealing. The fact that the hazard originated in third-party illegal conduct does not sever Engineer A's professional responsibility, because Engineer A had the knowledge and the professional obligation to disclose it before certifying the design.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer A's supervisor dismissed the commercial vehicle hazard concern and directed Engineer A to proceed with the original scaffolding design without modification, Engineer A's ethical obligations — informed by the BER 00-5 precedent — would require escalation beyond the supervisor, though not necessarily immediate escalation to law enforcement. The appropriate next step would be direct notification to the state DOT, which is both the ultimate client and the authority responsible for parkway enforcement. The BER 00-5 precedent establishes that a non-engineer authority's directive to proceed with an unsafe course of action does not override the engineer's professional obligation to protect public safety. The supervisor's dismissal would not constitute a resolution of the hazard; it would constitute a failure of the internal channel, triggering the obligation to escalate externally. Engineer A would also be ethically prohibited from sealing the design under those circumstances, regardless of employment consequences.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If Engineer A had proactively redesigned the scaffolding to accommodate commercial vehicle clearances without notifying the supervisor of the underlying hazard, the design adaptation alone would not satisfy Engineer A's ethical obligations. The redesign addresses the immediate physical risk to the scaffolding structure, but it leaves the enforcement gap entirely unaddressed. The illegal commercial vehicle pattern poses ongoing risks beyond the scaffolding itself — to other road users, to future construction phases, and to the public generally — that only the DOT or law enforcement can address. Furthermore, silently redesigning without disclosure deprives the supervisor and the DOT of information they need to make informed decisions about the project and about parkway enforcement. The failure to disclose would constitute an independent ethical breach under the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle and the public safety reporting obligations of the NSPE Code, regardless of how well-designed the scaffolding itself might be.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: The threshold for triggering a formal safety reporting obligation would not be meaningfully different if Engineer A had observed the illegal commercial vehicle use only once on the day of the design assignment, though the repeated, pattern-based nature of the observations does strengthen the practical case for disclosure. The ethical obligation to report a foreseeable safety hazard to the supervisor is triggered by the existence of a credible, good-faith concern — not by a minimum number of observations. A single sighting of an illegal commercial vehicle on the parkway, observed on the same day as the design assignment, would be sufficient to create a good-faith basis for concern that warrants disclosure. The repeated observations do not create the obligation; they reinforce its credibility and make it more difficult for Engineer A to characterize the concern as speculative or anomalous. The pattern-based nature of the observations therefore clarifies and strengthens an obligation that would exist regardless of observation frequency, rather than being the source of that obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.1.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle is resolved in this case not by abandoning either, but by sequencing them: Engineer A is first required to discharge the public safety duty through the employer relationship rather than around it. Because the commercial vehicle hazard is foreseeable but not yet imminent, and because OPQ Construction is itself a party to the state DOT contract, the supervisor notification step simultaneously honors the faithful agent role and activates the public safety obligation. The two principles are therefore not in genuine conflict at the initial stage — they converge on the same first action. Conflict would only crystallize if the supervisor refused to act, at which point Public Welfare Paramount would unambiguously override the Faithful Agent Obligation, as the precedent in BER 00-5 makes clear when a non-engineer authority attempted to override a bridge closure decision.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between the Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold principle and the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle is resolved in favor of disclosure, but with a calibrated scope. Engineer A's repeated personal commute observations of illegal commercial vehicle use constitute a pattern-based, good-faith factual basis sufficient to trigger the disclosure obligation — they are not mere speculation. The Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold does not require formal enforcement data or documented incident reports; it requires only that the concern be credible and substantiated by the engineer's own professional judgment. Because Engineer A possesses construction safety competence and has observed a recurring condition directly relevant to a design assignment just accepted, the threshold is met. However, the same threshold principle also constrains the form of disclosure: it counsels an initially verbal, supervisor-directed report rather than immediate external escalation, because the hazard, while foreseeable, is not yet verified as imminent. The Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting principle thus modulates the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle without negating it — disclosure is mandatory, but its initial channel and formality are proportionate to the current state of the hazard.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 2 b
cites provision: II 1
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.1.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: Comparing the present case with BER 00-5 and BER 07-10 reveals that the NSPE ethical framework resolves principle tensions through a graduated danger calibration rather than a uniform rule. In BER 00-5, where a condemned bridge faced imminent collapse risk and non-engineer authorities had already overridden the engineer's closure decision, the Public Welfare Paramount principle demanded a full-bore, multi-authority escalation campaign — the Faithful Agent Obligation was effectively suspended because the employer relationship had been weaponized against public safety. In BER 07-10, where a barn faced a non-imminent structural risk under severe snow loads and the engineer's client relationship had ended, a measured written notification to the new owner and town supervisor was sufficient, with deadline-conditioned escalation held in reserve. The present case falls between these poles: the hazard is more diffuse than BER 00-5 (no structure has yet been condemned, no authority has yet overridden Engineer A) but more operationally proximate than BER 07-10 (the design assignment is active and workers will imminently be placed in the hazard zone). This triangulation teaches that the Public Welfare Paramount principle does not operate at a single fixed intensity — its demands are proportional to the certainty, imminence, and severity of the hazard, and to whether institutional channels remain available and responsive. The Written Documentation Requirement functions as the escalation trigger that converts a verbal report into a formal record when those channels begin to fail.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.984976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Constructability-Review-Standard-Instance
type: ConstructabilityReviewStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: Professional engineering societies
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Constructability Review and Construction Safety Review Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Constructability Review Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance
usedby: Engineer A in determining whether additional safety review of the scaffolding design is warranted
usedincontext: Provides guidance on whether Engineer A should conduct or recommend a construction safety review of the scaffolding design to identify and mitigate foreseeable risks from illegal commercial vehicle traffic before construction proceeds
version: Professional consensus norm
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Construction-Safety-Knowledge-Standard-Instance
type: ConstructionSafetyKnowledgeStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: Professional engineering societies and OSHA regulatory framework
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Construction Safety Knowledge Standard for Structural and Civil Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Construction Safety Knowledge Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
usedby: Engineer A in assessing the boundaries of professional responsibility for worker safety in the scaffolding design task
usedincontext: Governs the scope of construction safety knowledge Engineer A is expected to apply when designing scaffolding, including identification of foreseeable risks such as illegal vehicle intrusion on a limited-access parkway
version: Professional consensus standard
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.745513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Construction Workers Public Safety Stakeholder
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Construction and inspection workers', 'safety_exposure': 'Direct risk from illegal commercial vehicle traffic near scaffolding'}
caseinvolvement: Construction and inspection employees who will work on or near the scaffolding on the parkway cloverleaf ramp, whose safety is directly endangered by the potential for illegal commercial vehicles to pass the scaffolding, establishing Engineer A's paramount public safety obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'OPQ Construction'}
relationships: {'type': 'safety_obligation_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.747320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Consulting Engineering Firm BER 00-5
type: AdversarialLitigationTestingSupervisorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineering firm', 'deliverable': 'Signed and sealed bridge inspection report'}
caseinvolvement: A consulting engineering firm prepared a detailed, signed, and sealed inspection report indicating seven pilings required replacement, and was subsequently identified as a party with whom Engineer A should work to determine whether the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution would be effective.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.75
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Local Government'}
relationships: {'type': 'collaborates_with', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor Engineer
sourcetext: a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement
textreferences: Engineer A should have worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution would be effective
textreferences: a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.749922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Crutch Piles Installed By Order
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Must_Evaluate_Non_Engineer_Directive_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Temporary physical measure installed; safety risk partially addressed but not eliminated; engineer's obligation to assess adequacy of non-engineer-directed remediation is triggered
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Professional_Disagreement_If_Applicable
creates obligation: Engineer_Must_Escalate_If_Measure_Is_Insufficient
creates obligation: Engineer_Must_Evaluate_Whether_Crutch_Piles_Are_Adequate
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During BER Case 00-5 escalation sequence (weeks after bridge deterioration discovered)
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: In BER Case 00-5, a non-engineer Public Works Director orders the installation of crutch piles as a temporary remediation measure for the deteriorating bridge, overriding or supplementing the engineer's professional judgment. This represents an institutional response that may be insufficient or inappropriate.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: When Engineer A's personal commute observations of illegal commercial vehicle use on the parkway become materially relevant to an active scaffolding design assignment, what form and timing of reporting does his professional obligation require?
focus: Engineer A's duty to report incidentally observed illegal commercial vehicle use on the parkway to his supervisor at OPQ Construction, arising from personal commute observations that become professionally actionable upon receipt of the scaffolding design assignment.
option1: Immediately notify the supervisor verbally of the commercial vehicle hazard and follow up with written documentation contemporaneously, treating the commute observations as sufficient good-faith basis for reporting without awaiting formal verification
option2: Notify the supervisor verbally of the commercial vehicle concern as an informal observation, deferring written documentation unless the supervisor requests it or fails to respond, on the basis that the lower severity of this case relative to BER 00-5 supports contextually calibrated communication
option3: Systematically document dates, times, and vehicle types during subsequent commutes to establish a formal evidentiary record before raising the concern with the supervisor, so that the notification is grounded in verifiable data rather than informal personal impression
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.275043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP10
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP10
decision question: When Engineer A receives the scaffolding design assignment and recognizes that his repeated personal commute observations of illegal commercial vehicle use on the parkway are materially relevant to that assignment, what action must he take — and does the informal, off-duty source of those observations affect the strength or timing of that obligation?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to notify his supervisor of the commercial vehicle hazard upon receiving the scaffolding design assignment, given that his knowledge derives from personal commute observations rather than formal site inspection
option1: Immediately notify the supervisor verbally and in writing of the commercial vehicle hazard upon recognizing its relevance to the scaffolding assignment, treating repeated personal commute observations as sufficient evidentiary basis without awaiting formal verification
option2: Conduct a structured personal documentation effort over several additional commutes — logging dates, times, vehicle types, and estimated clearances — before raising the concern with the supervisor, in order to present a credible and defensible evidentiary record rather than an anecdotal report
option3: Raise the commercial vehicle observation informally with the supervisor as a preliminary design consideration — framing it as a factor to investigate during the formal site inspection phase rather than as an immediate safety notification — while proceeding with initial design scoping
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.277436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP11
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP11
decision question: After notifying his supervisor of the commercial vehicle hazard, should Engineer A condition finalization and sealing of the scaffolding design on formal acknowledgment and corrective action — and is he obligated to proactively present alternative design configurations or protective measures as part of that notification rather than simply flagging the hazard and awaiting direction?
focus: Engineer A's obligation regarding finalization and sealing of the scaffolding design in relation to the unresolved commercial vehicle hazard, including whether to present alternative design configurations and whether to condition design completion on supervisor acknowledgment and corrective action
option1: Condition finalization and sealing of the scaffolding design on the supervisor's formal acknowledgment of the commercial vehicle hazard and adoption of corrective measures — whether through physical design modifications, traffic control coordination, or DOT enforcement — and proactively present preliminary alternative configurations with greater clearance buffers or barrier integration as part of the hazard notification
option2: Proceed with finalizing and sealing the scaffolding design by independently incorporating commercial vehicle clearance accommodations — increased lateral buffers, physical barrier specifications, and phased work scheduling — into the design itself, treating the design solution as a sufficient discharge of the safety obligation without requiring separate supervisor acknowledgment of the underlying enforcement gap
option3: Notify the supervisor of the hazard verbally and in writing, document that notification as the discharge of Engineer A's professional duty, and then proceed with design finalization under the supervisor's direction — treating the supervisor's informed decision to proceed as transferring responsibility for the unresolved enforcement gap to OPQ Construction's management rather than to Engineer A as the design engineer
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.277532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP12
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP12
decision question: If Engineer A's supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, what escalation steps is Engineer A obligated to take — and does the less certain and less imminent nature of the parkway hazard relative to BER 00-5's condemned bridge scenario justify a more measured multi-step response rather than an immediate full multi-authority escalation campaign?
focus: Engineer A's escalation obligations if the supervisor fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification — including whether and when to escalate to higher OPQ Construction authority or directly to the state DOT, and how the graduated escalation framework from BER 00-5 and BER 07-10 calibrates the required response relative to the present case's lower severity
option1: Escalate the unresolved commercial vehicle hazard through higher authority within OPQ Construction after supervisor non-response, and if internal channels also fail, notify the state DOT directly as the contracting authority with regulatory jurisdiction — while refusing to finalize or seal the scaffolding design until the hazard is formally addressed
option2: Treat the supervisor's dismissal as a management decision that transfers responsibility for the enforcement gap to OPQ Construction, document the notification and non-response in writing as a complete discharge of Engineer A's professional duty, and proceed with design finalization incorporating whatever clearance accommodations are technically feasible within the assigned scope
option3: Escalate within OPQ Construction to higher management after supervisor non-response, but limit external escalation to a written advisory communication to the state DOT framed as a project safety coordination request — rather than a formal regulatory complaint — preserving the client relationship while ensuring the DOT has the information needed to exercise its own enforcement discretion
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.277610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Before finalizing and sealing the scaffolding design, what must Engineer A do to satisfy his ethical obligation to account for the foreseeable risk from illegally operating commercial vehicles — and does that obligation require presenting affirmative design alternatives alongside the hazard notification?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to condition finalization and sealing of the scaffolding design on formal acknowledgment and corrective action addressing the commercial vehicle hazard, and to present proactive design alternatives or mitigation options as part of the initial supervisor notification rather than simply flagging the hazard and awaiting direction.
option1: Notify the supervisor of the hazard with a preliminary presentation of mitigation alternatives — such as increased lateral clearance buffers, physical barrier integration, phased work scheduling, or a formal request to the state DOT for temporary traffic control — and condition finalization and sealing of the design on the supervisor's formal acknowledgment and adoption of corrective measures
option2: Redesign the scaffolding to physically accommodate commercial vehicle clearances — incorporating sufficient setback, height clearance, and protective barriers — and proceed to finalize and seal the design on that basis, treating the design accommodation as a complete technical resolution of the foreseeable hazard without requiring a separate supervisor notification of the underlying illegal traffic pattern
option3: Notify the supervisor of the commercial vehicle hazard verbally and in writing, flag the concern as requiring resolution before design finalization, and then proceed to complete the scaffolding design to the supervisor's direction while documenting that the hazard notification was made and that the supervisor accepted responsibility for the corrective action decision
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.276713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: If Engineer A's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, what escalation steps does Engineer A's professional obligation require, and how should the scope and urgency of that escalation be calibrated relative to the full multi-authority campaign warranted in BER 00-5?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to escalate the commercial vehicle hazard beyond his immediate supervisor — to higher authority within OPQ Construction and potentially to the state DOT or law enforcement — if the supervisor declines to address the hazard, and the appropriate sequencing and calibration of that escalation relative to BER 00-5.
option1: Refuse to finalize or seal the scaffolding design, escalate the hazard concern to higher authority within OPQ Construction, and if internal escalation also fails, notify the state DOT directly as the contracting authority with regulatory interest and enforcement capacity over the parkway — calibrating the escalation as a serious but measured multi-step response rather than an immediate full multi-authority campaign
option2: Treat the supervisor's non-response as a decision by the responsible party within OPQ Construction, document that the hazard notification was made and declined, and proceed to finalize the scaffolding design with whatever protective features are technically feasible within the assigned scope — on the basis that the proportional escalation framework does not require external notification for a hazard of this severity and imminence
option3: Simultaneously notify the state DOT and relevant law enforcement authorities directly upon supervisor non-response — without first exhausting internal OPQ Construction escalation channels — on the basis that the systemic and pre-existing nature of the enforcement gap makes this a public-safety condition extending beyond the specific project, warranting the same multi-authority escalation response applied in BER 00-5
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.276804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: When Engineer A recognizes that his personal commute observations of illegal commercial vehicle use on the parkway are directly relevant to the scaffolding design assignment he has accepted, what action must he take — and may he finalize or seal the design before the hazard is formally acknowledged and addressed?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to notify his supervisor of the commercial vehicle hazard and condition scaffolding design finalization on hazard resolution, given that his repeated personal commute observations of illegal commercial vehicle use are materially relevant to the active scaffolding assignment
option1: Immediately notify the supervisor verbally and in writing of the commercial vehicle hazard, present preliminary mitigation alternatives (increased clearance buffers, physical barriers, traffic control measures), and withhold finalization and sealing of the scaffolding design until the supervisor formally acknowledges the hazard and adopts corrective measures
option2: Notify the supervisor verbally of the observed hazard as a preliminary concern, proceed with designing the scaffolding to physically accommodate commercial vehicle clearances as a built-in engineering margin, and treat the design accommodation itself as sufficient mitigation without conditioning design finalization on a formal supervisor response
option3: Document the commute observations in a personal log over several additional days to establish a verifiable pattern, then present a written hazard notification to the supervisor with supporting evidence before raising the issue formally — treating evidentiary preparation as a prerequisite to a credible and actionable safety report
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.276887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: If Engineer A's supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, what escalation steps is Engineer A ethically obligated to take, and how does the proportionality principle calibrate those steps relative to the full multi-authority campaign required in BER 00-5?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond his immediate supervisor — to higher OPQ Construction authority or directly to the state DOT — if the supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, and the sequencing and proportionality of that escalation relative to BER 00-5
option1: Escalate the unresolved hazard through higher authority within OPQ Construction, and if internal channels also fail to produce corrective action, notify the state DOT directly in writing — while simultaneously refusing to finalize or seal the scaffolding design until the hazard is formally addressed
option2: Treat the supervisor's non-response as a determination by OPQ Construction management that the hazard does not warrant project modification, document Engineer A's original notification in writing as a record of fulfilled duty, and proceed with completing the scaffolding design incorporating maximum feasible clearance buffers as an engineering accommodation — deferring further escalation unless a specific incident occurs
option3: Escalate internally within OPQ Construction to the next supervisory level, and if that level also fails to act, submit a written notification to the state DOT framed as a contractor safety concern through the project's formal communication channel — stopping short of direct law enforcement notification on the grounds that the hazard's probability and imminence do not yet meet the threshold that justified the full multi-authority campaign in BER 00-5
role label: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.276975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Does Engineer A's professional duty require him to arrive at the supervisor notification with preliminary design alternatives already developed, and must written documentation of the hazard notification be issued contemporaneously with the verbal notification rather than only 'if necessary'?
focus: Whether Engineer A's ethical obligations are fully discharged by notifying the supervisor of the hazard, or whether they independently require presenting affirmative design alternatives and providing written documentation contemporaneously — rather than treating written notice as a contingency and alternative design presentation as optional
option1: Notify the supervisor verbally and simultaneously provide written documentation of the hazard, and arrive at the notification conversation with at least a preliminary set of design alternatives (clearance buffers, physical barriers, traffic control options) already developed — treating both written notice and alternative presentation as co-equal components of the professional duty
option2: Notify the supervisor verbally of the hazard immediately, without waiting to develop design alternatives, and provide written documentation only if the supervisor's verbal response is inadequate or dismissive — treating the written notice as a contingency triggered by supervisor non-responsiveness rather than as an independent co-equal obligation
option3: Notify the supervisor verbally of the hazard immediately and provide written documentation contemporaneously, but defer development and presentation of design alternatives until after the supervisor has had an opportunity to respond — treating hazard identification and solution-generation as sequential professional tasks rather than simultaneous obligations, to avoid delaying the notification while alternatives are being developed
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.277052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: When Engineer A receives the scaffolding design assignment and recognizes that his repeated personal commute observations of illegal commercial vehicles on the parkway are materially relevant to that assignment, what action must he take — and does the informal, off-duty source of those observations affect the strength or timing of his professional obligation?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to notify his supervisor of the commercial vehicle hazard upon receiving the scaffolding design assignment, including the threshold question of whether personal commute observations constitute sufficient evidentiary basis for a formal professional duty to act.
option1: Immediately notify the supervisor verbally of the commercial vehicle hazard and follow up with written notification contemporaneously or within the same business day, treating the commute observations as sufficient evidentiary basis without awaiting formal verification
option2: Spend one to two weeks documenting dates, times, and vehicle types during commutes to compile a formal evidentiary record before raising the concern with the supervisor, so that the notification is grounded in verifiable data rather than informal impressions
option3: Raise the commercial vehicle concern verbally with the supervisor as a preliminary observation requiring further investigation, without written follow-up, and defer formal notification until a site visit confirms the proximity and frequency of illegal vehicle use relative to the proposed scaffolding footprint
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.277132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: After notifying his supervisor of the commercial vehicle hazard, should Engineer A condition finalization and sealing of the scaffolding design on formal acknowledgment and corrective action by OPQ Construction — or should he proceed with design completion under supervisor direction, potentially incorporating design accommodations for the foreseeable illegal traffic without requiring prior enforcement action?
focus: Engineer A's obligation regarding finalization and sealing of the scaffolding design in the face of supervisor pressure to proceed, where the commercial vehicle hazard has been raised but not formally acknowledged or resolved.
option1: Condition finalization and sealing of the scaffolding design on the supervisor's formal acknowledgment of the commercial vehicle hazard and adoption of at least one corrective measure — physical design modification, traffic control plan, or DOT coordination — and present preliminary alternative design configurations alongside the hazard notification to facilitate that resolution
option2: Proceed with finalizing and sealing the scaffolding design, incorporating conservative clearance buffers and physical protective barriers sufficient to accommodate foreseeable commercial vehicle dimensions, treating the design accommodation itself as the corrective measure without requiring separate supervisor acknowledgment or enforcement action
option3: Proceed with design development but not finalization or sealing, submitting a preliminary design package to the supervisor with a written notation that the plans are not ready for sealing pending resolution of the identified commercial vehicle hazard, thereby maintaining project momentum while formally preserving Engineer A's professional objection in the project record
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.277259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: If Engineer A's supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, what escalation steps is Engineer A obligated to take — and does the less certain and less imminent nature of the parkway scaffolding hazard, relative to the condemned bridge scenario in BER 00-5, justify a more measured escalation response or does the Public Welfare Paramount principle demand equivalent urgency regardless of comparative severity?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to escalate beyond his immediate supervisor — to higher OPQ Construction authority, the state DOT, or law enforcement — if the supervisor dismisses or fails to act on the commercial vehicle hazard notification, and how that escalation obligation is calibrated relative to the more aggressive multi-authority campaign required in BER 00-5.
option1: Escalate to higher authority within OPQ Construction after supervisor dismissal, and if internal channels also fail to produce corrective action, notify the state DOT directly as the contracting authority — while simultaneously refusing to finalize or seal the scaffolding design until the hazard is formally addressed
option2: Upon supervisor dismissal, immediately notify the state DOT, relevant law enforcement, and OSHA simultaneously — treating the supervisor's non-response as equivalent to the active safety override in BER 00-5 and initiating a full multi-authority escalation campaign without waiting to exhaust internal OPQ Construction channels
option3: Upon supervisor dismissal, document the supervisor's non-response in writing, proceed with design work incorporating maximum feasible protective measures, and defer external escalation to the DOT or law enforcement unless and until a specific incident or near-miss occurs that elevates the hazard from foreseeable to imminent
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T02:19:38.277356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Design Scaffolding Accommodating Commercial Vehicles
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer, OPQ Construction
foreseen unintended effects: Design accommodating commercial vehicles may be more complex, costly, or time-consuming
foreseen unintended effects: Designing for illegal use may be perceived as normalizing or accepting the illegal traffic rather than seeking its elimination
foreseen unintended effects: May not be feasible given the limited height and width clearance of the parkway cloverleaf ramp
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to apply engineering competence to mitigate foreseeable hazards
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect the safety of construction workers through engineering design
guided by principle text: Engineering solutions as complement to regulatory and enforcement measures
guided by principle text: Precautionary design under uncertainty
guided by principle text: Public and worker safety paramount
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and precautionary
intended outcome: Eliminate or reduce the physical risk to scaffolding workers by engineering a design that accounts for the possibility of commercial vehicles passing, regardless of whether law enforcement or traffic closure measures are implemented
raises obligation text: Potential concern that designing for illegal use without simultaneously advocating for enforcement could be seen as accepting an unsafe status quo
requires capability text: Knowledge of commercial vehicle dimensions and impact forces
requires capability text: Scaffolding design expertise
requires capability text: Structural engineering judgment for protective design
requires capability text: Traffic hazard and clearance analysis
temporal marker: Near future, parallel or alternative action to external corrective measures
temporal sequence: 16
within competence: true
comment: As one potential corrective measure, Engineer A could design the scaffolding to accommodate the possibility of commercial vehicles passing by, rather than relying solely on external enforcement to eliminate the hazard. This is identified in the discussion as one option among several for protecting workers.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Design Scaffolding Accommodating Commercial Vehicles (Action 5) → Safety Hazard Condition Mitigated (modification of Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As one potential corrective measure, Engineer A could design the scaffolding to accommodate the possibility of commercial vehicles using the parkway, thereby reducing the collision and structural risk created by the intersection of illegal traffic and construction infrastructure
cause: Design Scaffolding Accommodating Commercial Vehicles (Action 5)
counterfactual: Without this design accommodation, the scaffolding as originally conceived would remain vulnerable to commercial vehicle impact; the design modification directly reduces but may not eliminate the hazard, making it a necessary but potentially insufficient standalone remedy
effect: Safety Hazard Condition Mitigated (modification of Event 3)
necessary factors: Engineer A having design authority and flexibility to modify the scaffolding specifications
necessary factors: Supervisor or client approval of the modified design approach
necessary factors: Technical feasibility of designing scaffolding that accommodates commercial vehicle dimensions and loads
necessary factors: The hazard condition having been identified prior to design finalization
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A (design decision); Supervisor at OPQ Construction (approval authority)
sufficient factors: Design authority + technical feasibility + timely identification of hazard = sufficient conditions for design-based mitigation
sufficient factors: This corrective measure alone may not be sufficient if commercial vehicles still pose risks to workers; it must be combined with traffic control measures
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer-Safety-Recommendation-Rejection-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerSafetyRecommendationRejectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review and professional engineering ethics consensus
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating obligations when directed by supervisor to proceed despite identified safety risk
usedincontext: Relevant to Engineer A's situation if his supervisor directs him to proceed with scaffolding design without addressing the foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard, establishing Engineer A's obligations to document safety concerns and determine whether escalation is required
version: Professional consensus norm
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.745656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Accepts Design Assignment
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer, OPQ Construction
foreseen unintended effects: Delay in raising concerns could expose construction workers and the public to preventable safety risks
foreseen unintended effects: Failure to act promptly could be construed as professional negligence or ethical abdication
foreseen unintended effects: Proceeding without raising concerns could result in scaffolding designed without accounting for illegal commercial vehicle traffic
fulfills obligation text: Internal recognition of safety hazard consistent with professional awareness obligation
fulfills obligation text: Preliminary compliance with employer directive
guided by principle text: Duty to report known hazards
guided by principle text: Professional honesty and candor with employer
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate but conflicted
intended outcome: Comply with employer directive and fulfill professional role within OPQ Construction while internally recognizing a safety concern that must be addressed
raises obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
raises obligation text: Obligation not to undertake engineering work under conditions known to be unsafe without first seeking corrective action
raises obligation text: Obligation to immediately notify supervisor of known safety hazards before proceeding with design
requires capability text: Professional judgment regarding safety thresholds
requires capability text: Scaffolding design expertise
requires capability text: Site hazard identification and risk assessment
temporal marker: Current moment, at point of receiving assignment before design begins
temporal sequence: 13
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A accepts the supervisor's directive to design the inspection and construction scaffolding despite having personal knowledge of the commercial vehicle hazard on the parkway. This decision to proceed, even tentatively, without immediately raising concerns constitutes a volitional professional act.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.766495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Accepts Design Assignment Action 2 + Safety Hazard Condition Exists Event 3 → Notify Supervisor of Hazard Action 3 - obligation triggered
type: CausalChain
causal language: Engineer A's acceptance of the design assignment combined with his personal observation of the hazard condition creates a direct professional obligation to notify his immediate supervisor verbally and in writing if necessary
cause: Engineer A Accepts Design Assignment (Action 2) + Safety Hazard Condition Exists (Event 3)
counterfactual: If Engineer A had not accepted the assignment, he would bear no specific design-related duty; if he had not personally observed the illegal vehicles, constructive knowledge might still apply but the obligation would be less immediate and certain
effect: Notify Supervisor of Hazard (Action 3), obligation triggered
necessary factors: Engineer A's actual knowledge of the safety hazard through personal observation
necessary factors: Engineer A's status as a licensed professional engineer bound by ethical codes
necessary factors: Engineer A's voluntary acceptance of the design assignment, establishing professional responsibility
necessary factors: The existence of a foreseeable risk of harm to workers and the public
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Accepted professional responsibility + actual knowledge of hazard + ethical code obligations = sufficient basis to require notification action
sufficient factors: The combination of these three factors leaves no ethical ambiguity about the duty to act
within agent control: true

Engineer A Accepts Design Assignment (Action 2) + Safety Hazard Condition Exists (Event 3) → Notify Supervisor of Hazard (Action 3) — obligation triggered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Constraint Bridge Collapse
type: ImminentWidespreadInfrastructureCollapseFull-BoreCampaignConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A in BER 00-5 observed log trucks and tankers crossing a bridge condemned due to rotten pilings, after a non-engineer public works director authorized crutch pile installation and reopening
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
constraintclass: Imminent Widespread Infrastructure Collapse Full-Bore Campaign Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 00-5 was constrained to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign — contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities — upon discovering that the condemned bridge had been reopened by a non-engineer public works director without adequate engineering review, because the danger was imminent and potentially widespread.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
temporalscope: Following the unauthorized reopening of the condemned bridge with crutch piles and five-ton limit
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
textreferences: the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.766805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Authority Bridge Reopening Non-Acquiescence Constraint
type: Non-EngineerAuthoritySafetyOverrideResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director overrode Engineer A's bridge closure determination by commissioning an unlicensed retired bridge inspector and authorizing crutch pile installation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 00-5 was constrained from acquiescing to the non-engineer public works director's decision to have a retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) examine the bridge and authorize crutch pile installation and reopening, requiring Engineer A to resist the override by escalating to supervisors, regulatory authorities, and other officials with jurisdiction.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
temporalscope: Following the non-engineer public works director's decision to reopen the condemned bridge
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.766954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Bridge Closure Non-Subordination Constraint
type: PublicPressureSafetyDeterminationNon-SubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A rally was held and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
constraintclass: Public Pressure Safety Determination Non-Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 00-5 was constrained from subordinating his bridge closure determination to the 200-signature petition, community rally, and political pressure from the County Commission, establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety is non-negotiable regardless of the intensity of public opposition.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
sourcetext: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation
temporalscope: Following the community rally and petition presentation to the County Commission
textreferences: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.767284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice Reporting Constraint
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A retired bridge inspector who was not a licensed engineer performed structural evaluation of the condemned bridge and recommended a crutch pile solution, which was then implemented by the non-engineer public works director
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
constraintclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 00-5 was constrained to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's structural evaluation and crutch pile recommendation constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and, if so, to report that individual to the state engineering licensure board.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Practice Act; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
temporalscope: Following discovery of the retired bridge inspector's activities
textreferences: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.767124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion Safety Duty Barn
type: CertificateofOccupancyNon-PreclusionofEngineerSafetyDutyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The town approved Jones's extension and issued a certificate of occupancy despite the structural modifications that Engineer A assessed as potentially dangerous under severe snow loads
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
constraintclass: Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Duty Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 07-10 was constrained from treating the town's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the barn extension as a complete discharge of his independent duty to report the subsequently identified structural safety deficiency — establishing that the regulatory approval did not preclude Engineer A's obligation to notify the owner and town supervisor of the perceived structural risk.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued
temporalscope: Following the town's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the barn extension
textreferences: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.767815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County State Building Officials
type: GraduatedDeadline-ConditionedEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter but no action was taken
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
constraintclass: Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 07-10 was constrained to follow a graduated escalation pathway — following up verbal notification with written confirmation, setting a specific reasonable deadline for corrective action, notifying the town supervisor in writing that failure to act within the deadline would require escalation to county or state building officials, and escalating if the deadline passed without adequate action.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor
temporalscope: Following Engineer A's initial verbal notification to the town supervisor about the barn structural risk
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor
textreferences: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.767638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 New Owner Priority Written Notification Barn Structural Deficiency
type: NewPropertyOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A learned that Jones had removed structural columns and footings from the barn Engineer A had designed, creating a potential collapse risk under severe snow loads
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
constraintclass: New Property Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 07-10 was constrained to notify Jones, the new barn owner, in writing of the perceived structural deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, establishing that the property owner's direct interest in the safety of their own property creates a priority notification right.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
temporalscope: Upon learning of Jones's structural modifications and the potential collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.767435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Construction Safety Competence Boundary Self-Recognition Scaffolding
type: ConstructionSafetyCompetenceBoundarySelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Construction Safety Competence Boundary Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to accurately recognize the boundaries of his own competence with respect to construction safety assessment for temporary scaffolding on restricted roadways — including understanding when the foreseeable risk from illegal vehicle operation requires consultation with traffic safety specialists, law enforcement, or the DOT client beyond his own engineering design competence.
casecontext: Engineer A must assess whether the commercial vehicle hazard can be adequately addressed through scaffolding design modifications alone, or whether the problem requires engagement of traffic enforcement, DOT client notification, or other parties beyond his design authority.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's need to assess whether his own engineering competence is sufficient to fully address the commercial vehicle hazard through design alone, or whether additional expertise or authority is required.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
textreferences: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.759579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer
type: ConstructionScaffoldingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'OPQ Construction', 'specialty': 'Temporary structure / scaffolding design', 'personal_knowledge': 'Has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway from personal commuting experience'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed professional engineer employed by OPQ Construction, directed by supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance, who has personally observed illegal commercial vehicle traffic on the parkway and is concerned about the safety risk this poses to construction workers and the public near the proposed scaffolding.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'contracted_client', 'target': 'State Department of Transportation'}
relationships: {'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'OPQ Construction Supervisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'OPQ Construction'}
relationships: {'type': 'public_safety_obligation_toward', 'target': 'Construction Workers and Passing Public'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer employed by OPQ Construction
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer employed by OPQ Construction
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.746862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Corrective Action Options Presentation Supervisor Scaffolding Hazard
type: CorrectiveActionOptionsIdentificationandPresentationforIllegalTrafficHazardObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A must present actionable corrective options to his supervisor to enable informed decision-making about how to address the commercial vehicle hazard
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Corrective Action Options Identification and Presentation for Illegal Traffic Hazard Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to identify and present to his supervisor at OPQ Construction a range of corrective action options for addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — including heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, design modification to accommodate commercial vehicles, or other protective measures — before proceeding with scaffolding design finalization.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; FHWA MUTCD Work Zone Safety Standards
sourcetext: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
temporalscope: During supervisor notification and prior to design finalization
textreferences: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.767963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Corrective Action Pre-Construction Resolution Identification Present Case
type: CorrectiveActionPre-ConstructionResolutionIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Corrective Action Pre-Construction Resolution Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to identify and present to his supervisor a range of corrective action options — including heightened law enforcement, traffic lane closure, design accommodation for commercial vehicles, or other protective measures — that needed to be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the scaffolding.
casecontext: Engineer A designing temporary inspection and construction scaffolding on an active parkway where commercial vehicles were illegally operating.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that appropriate corrective action must be considered and implemented before construction workers are exposed to the commercial vehicle hazard during scaffolding assembly and use.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (OPQ Construction, present case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others.
textreferences: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others.
textreferences: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Crutch Pile Remediation Adequacy Collaborative Verification BER 00-5
type: CrutchPileRemediationAdequacyCollaborativeVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Crutch Pile Remediation Adequacy Collaborative Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 possessed the capability to work collaboratively with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the original signed and sealed inspection report to determine whether the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution was structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to supervisory and governing authorities.
casecontext: Consulting engineering firm had prepared signed and sealed inspection report indicating seven pilings required replacement; non-engineer public works director authorized only two crutch piles with five-ton limit.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the consulting firm's original sealed inspection report — indicating seven pilings required replacement — provided the technical baseline against which the adequacy of the crutch pile remediation needed to be evaluated collaboratively.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
textreferences: Engineer A should have also worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
textreferences: Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.769647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County State Building Officials BER 07-10
type: Deadline-ConditionedBuildingAuthorityEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Deadline-Conditioned Building Authority Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 07-10 possessed the capability to communicate a conditional escalation threat to the town supervisor — stating in writing that if adequate corrective steps were not taken within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials — thereby creating a documented ultimatum motivating action and establishing the basis for subsequent escalation.
casecontext: Town supervisor received verbal notification of barn structural risk but took no action; Engineer A needed to escalate through written deadline-conditioned communication.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that after setting a reasonable deadline for corrective action by the town supervisor, Engineer A should escalate the barn structural risk to county or state building officials if adequate steps were not taken within the specified period.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
textreferences: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Fact Command Pre-Reporting Readiness Constraint — Parkway Scaffolding
type: EngineeringFactCommandPre-ReportingReadinessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's personal observations provide a factual basis for concern, but he must be prepared to articulate the specific engineering standards implicated, the nature of the restriction violation, and the foreseeable harm pathway before engaging external authorities.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineering Fact Command Pre-Reporting Readiness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to ensure he is in command of all relevant facts — including the specific parkway restriction, the frequency and nature of observed commercial vehicle violations, applicable scaffolding safety standards, and the specific clearance limitations of the cloverleaf ramp — before escalating the safety concern to state DOT officials, law enforcement, or the state engineering licensure board.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; Engineering Fact Command Pre-Reporting Readiness Constraint; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
temporalscope: Prior to external escalation beyond the immediate supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.758294
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation BER 00-5
type: Five-TonWeightLimitStrictEnforcementSupervisorEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 possessed the capability to immediately press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit on the bridge reopened with inadequate remediation, and upon ineffective response, to escalate to state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
casecontext: Bridge reopened with five-ton limit after inadequate crutch pile remediation; log trucks and tankers crossing regularly while school buses went around.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Observation that log trucks and tankers were crossing the bridge on a regular basis in violation of the five-ton limit, causing significant movement of the bridge, triggering the obligation to press for strict enforcement and escalate when enforcement was not achieved.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing and this resulted in significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.769876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Foreseeable Illegal Commercial Vehicle Use Scaffolding Design Parameter Constraint
type: Restricted-UseInfrastructureIllegalThird-PartyUseScaffoldingDesignSafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has personally observed commercial vehicles on the restricted parkway during his daily commute and is now tasked with designing scaffolding for ramp inspection work
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Restricted-Use Infrastructure Illegal Third-Party Use Scaffolding Design Safety Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from designing the parkway ramp scaffolding solely to the legal noncommercial restriction when personal observation establishes that commercial vehicles regularly traverse the restricted parkway, requiring that the design account for the foreseeable illegal use as a design parameter or that corrective action be secured before finalization.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; OSHA Construction Scaffolding Standards; FHWA MUTCD Work Zone Safety Standards
sourcetext: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
temporalscope: During the scaffolding design phase, prior to finalization and assembly
textreferences: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
textreferences: safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.766094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern External Reporting Threshold Assessment Scaffolding
type: GrayAreaPublicWelfareThresholdJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Gray Area Public Welfare Threshold Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to assess whether his personal observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway — combined with his professional judgment about the resulting scaffolding safety risk — rise to the threshold requiring external reporting to the state DOT or other regulatory authorities, even in the absence of a confirmed accident or regulatory violation finding.
casecontext: Engineer A must exercise professional judgment about whether the identified safety concern — based on personal observation of illegal vehicle operation rather than confirmed incident data — meets the threshold for external reporting to the state DOT client or other authorities.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to assess whether the combination of observed illegal vehicle operation and foreseeable scaffolding worker endangerment constitutes a public welfare concern requiring escalation beyond his employer.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.758919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern External Reporting Threshold Constraint
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernWithoutDemonstrableViolationEscalationBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's concern is based on personal observation of illegal commercial vehicle use, not on a confirmed accident or imminent collapse. The graduated escalation standard applies, though the concern is serious enough to require formal supervisor notification and, if unaddressed, external escalation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained in the form and scope of external escalation permissible regarding the commercial vehicle hazard — because while the concern is well-founded and based on personal observation, no accident has yet occurred and the hazard is foreseeable rather than imminent — requiring that Engineer A distinguish between the graduated escalation appropriate for a foreseeable pre-construction hazard and the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for an imminent, ongoing public safety emergency.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: BER Case 00-5 (distinguished); Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint; NSPE Code of Ethics Section I
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
temporalscope: Prior to scaffolding assembly and construction commencement
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.757971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Danger Calibration — Parkway Scaffolding vs BER 00-5 Bridge
type: CorrectiveActionScopeProportionalityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The parkway scaffolding hazard is serious and foreseeable but not yet imminent in the same sense as an already-condemned bridge being reopened under public pressure. The graduated escalation standard applies, distinguishing this case from BER 00-5.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to calibrate the scope and intensity of his safety escalation response to the parkway scaffolding hazard proportionately to its imminence and severity — which, while serious, is less immediately catastrophic than the imminent bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5 — requiring graduated escalation (supervisor notification, written follow-up, state DOT escalation, law enforcement contact) rather than immediate simultaneous multi-authority campaign.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 00-5 (distinguished); BER Case 07-10; NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Constraint principles
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
temporalscope: Throughout the scaffolding design and pre-construction phase
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.757463
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Escalation Calibration Present Case vs BER 00-5 vs BER 07-10
type: GraduatedEscalationCalibratedtoDangerImminenceandEmploymentContextConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is designing scaffolding for parkway cloverleaf ramp inspection and has personally observed commercial vehicles illegally using the restricted parkway, creating a foreseeable collision hazard to workers
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence and Employment Context Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's escalation response to the commercial vehicle hazard on the parkway ramp is constrained to be proportionate to the imminence and breadth of the danger — which is significant but not as imminent or widespread as the BER 00-5 bridge collapse — requiring graduated escalation beginning with immediate supervisor notification rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required in BER 00-5, while still requiring that DOT and law enforcement be engaged through appropriate channels before design finalization.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A identifies the commercial vehicle hazard through completion of scaffolding design and assembly
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards
textreferences: the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.765950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Illegal Vehicle Foreseeable Risk Scaffolding Safety Assessment
type: IllegalVehicleOperationForeseeableRiskScaffoldingSafetyAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Illegal Vehicle Operation Foreseeable Risk Scaffolding Safety Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the technical and ethical capability to assess the foreseeable risk posed by illegally operating commercial vehicles to the proposed scaffolding and construction workers, identifying the causal pathway from illegal vehicle operation to potential worker injury and incorporating this risk into design and notification obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A has personally observed illegal commercial vehicle operation on the parkway and has assessed that this creates a foreseeable safety risk to workers on the scaffolding he is designing.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's assessment that commercial vehicles illegally operating on the parkway create a foreseeable endangerment to inspection and construction employees working on or near the scaffolding at the cloverleaf ramp.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
textreferences: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.753100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Scaffolding
type: ImminentvsNon-ImminentRiskEscalationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to correctly calibrate the urgency and scope of his escalation response to the commercial vehicle hazard — distinguishing between the current pre-construction phase (where the risk is foreseeable but not yet imminent) and the construction phase (where workers will be actively exposed to the hazard) — and to calibrate his reporting and design obligations accordingly.
casecontext: Engineer A must calibrate his escalation response to the commercial vehicle hazard, recognizing that the risk is foreseeable and serious but that the construction has not yet commenced, informing the appropriate scope and urgency of his response.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's need to assess whether the foreseeable risk from illegal commercial vehicles to future scaffolding workers requires immediate full-bore escalation or a more graduated approach beginning with supervisor notification and design modification.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.759062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Scaffolding Case
type: ImminentvsNon-ImminentRiskEscalationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to calibrate the scaffolding/commercial vehicle safety risk as real but non-imminent and non-widespread — distinguishing it from the imminent bridge collapse in BER 00-5 — and to select a graduated supervisor-first escalation approach rather than a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
casecontext: Engineer A designing scaffolding for parkway cloverleaf ramp repair, having observed illegally operating commercial vehicles during personal commute.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the commercial vehicle hazard on the parkway, while significant, did not require the same level of immediate multi-authority escalation as the BER 00-5 bridge collapse scenario, and that notifying the immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction was the appropriate first step.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (OPQ Construction, present case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation BER 00-5
type: ImminentvsNon-ImminentStructuralRiskEscalationCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 possessed the capability to recognize the bridge collapse risk as imminent and widespread, requiring a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
casecontext: Engineer A as local government engineer responsible for a critically unsafe bridge reopened under public pressure with inadequate crutch pile remediation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Identification that the bridge with rotten pilings, significant movement under traffic, and log trucks and tankers crossing regularly constituted an imminent and widespread danger requiring immediate multi-authority escalation beyond the supervisor level.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.
textreferences: the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Incidental Commute Observation Pre-Design Corrective Action Constraint
type: IncidentalPersonalObservationWorksiteHazardPre-DesignCorrectiveActionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has personally observed commercial vehicles illegally operating on the noncommercial parkway during his daily commute, and has been directed to design scaffolding for a cloverleaf ramp on that same parkway with limited height and width clearance.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Incidental Personal Observation Worksite Hazard Pre-Design Corrective Action Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from finalizing the parkway cloverleaf ramp scaffolding design without first seeking corrective action regarding the foreseeable hazard posed by illegally operating commercial vehicles — observed through personal commute experience — to construction and inspection workers who will use the scaffolding.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I (public safety paramount); BER Case 00-5; professional obligation to hold paramount the safety of construction workers and the public
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
temporalscope: Prior to and throughout the scaffolding design and assembly process
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.756865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Agency Jurisdiction Identification Scaffolding Safety Escalation
type: Multi-AgencyJurisdictionIdentificationforSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Agency Jurisdiction Identification for Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to identify all appropriate authorities — including the state DOT client, relevant traffic enforcement authorities, and engineering regulatory bodies — to whom the commercial vehicle hazard must be escalated if his supervisor fails to respond adequately.
casecontext: If the supervisor fails to respond, Engineer A must identify the full range of appropriate escalation targets, including the state DOT that hired OPQ Construction and other regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the parkway and construction safety.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to identify and contact all appropriate external authorities if OPQ Construction's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: OPQ Construction is a construction contractor hired by the state department of transportation to inspect and repair a series of state highway and parkway 'on and off' ramps.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: OPQ Construction is a construction contractor hired by the state department of transportation to inspect and repair a series of state highway and parkway 'on and off' ramps.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.759341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Precedent Public Safety Duty Synthesis Present Case
type: Multi-PrecedentPublicSafetyDutySynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Precedent Public Safety Duty Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to synthesize the public safety duty frameworks from BER Cases 00-5 and 07-10 to correctly determine the appropriate level of response for the scaffolding/commercial vehicle hazard — applying the graduated escalation model of BER 07-10 rather than the full-bore campaign of BER 00-5, while still fulfilling the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
casecontext: Engineer A confronting the scaffolding safety dilemma and needing to calibrate response against the spectrum of BER precedent cases.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Application of synthesized BER precedent to determine that immediate supervisor notification with written follow-up, combined with ensuring DOT and law enforcement notification through appropriate channels, constituted the proportionate professional response.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (OPQ Construction, present case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: On several occasions, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma and each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved.
textreferences: As the Board has noted before, there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
textreferences: On several occasions, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma and each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved.
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.769154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification Jones Barn BER 07-10
type: NewOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeOfficialEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 07-10 possessed the capability to recognize that Jones, the new barn owner, should be notified in writing of the perceived structural deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, so that the owner had the opportunity to take protective action and was not blindsided by regulatory intervention without prior notice.
casecontext: Jones purchased barn from Engineer A, extended it by removing structural columns and footings, received certificate of occupancy; Engineer A later learned of modifications and was concerned about collapse risk.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn before escalating to the town supervisor.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
textreferences: Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency.
textreferences: in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Override Recognition BER 00-5
type: Non-EngineerInfrastructureDecisionOverrideRecognitionandResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Override Recognition and Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 possessed the capability to recognize that the non-engineer public works director had unilaterally overridden a professional engineering safety determination by directing a retired non-engineer bridge inspector to examine the bridge and authorizing reopening with inadequate crutch pile remediation, and to resist that override through escalation.
casecontext: Non-engineer public works director directing retired non-engineer bridge inspector to assess critically unsafe bridge and authorizing reopening over Engineer A's professional safety determination.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the non-engineer public works director's decision to install crutch piles and reopen the bridge with a five-ton limit — based on assessment by a non-licensed retired inspector — constituted an impermissible override of engineering safety judgment requiring escalation to supervisors, regulatory authorities, and other officials.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.769294
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Personal Commute Observation Professional Safety Duty Recognition
type: PersonalCommuteObservationProfessionalSafetyDutyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Personal Commute Observation Professional Safety Duty Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the ethical awareness capability to recognize that his personal commute observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway constitute professionally material safety information that must be reported and incorporated into his scaffolding design obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A commutes on the parkway and has personally observed commercial vehicles illegally driving there, connecting this personal observation to his active professional obligation to design safe scaffolding for workers on that same roadway.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that his personal driving experience on the parkway — observing commercial vehicles illegally operating — is directly relevant to the safety of the scaffolding he is designing, triggering professional reporting and design obligations.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.752947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Design Corrective Action Prerequisite Scaffolding Commercial Vehicle Hazard
type: IncidentalPersonalObservationWorksiteHazardPre-DesignCorrectiveActionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A must design scaffolding for parkway ramp inspection while aware of foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard that has not yet been addressed
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Incidental Personal Observation Worksite Hazard Pre-Design Corrective Action Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from finalizing and implementing the scaffolding design without first ensuring that appropriate corrective action addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — such as heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, or design modification — has been considered and initiated through supervisor notification and DOT engagement.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; BER Case 07-10
sourcetext: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
temporalscope: Prior to finalization and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
textreferences: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.766232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent-Informed Proportional Safety Response Calibration Present Case
type: RiskImminenceComparativeCaseCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Risk Imminence Comparative Case Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to explicitly calibrate the required response to the scaffolding/commercial vehicle hazard against the spectrum established by BER 00-5 (full-bore multi-authority campaign for imminent widespread bridge collapse) and BER 07-10 (graduated written notification for non-imminent barn structural risk), correctly determining that the present case falls closer to the BER 07-10 end of the spectrum.
casecontext: Engineer A confronting scaffolding safety dilemma and needing to calibrate response against BER 00-5 and BER 07-10 precedent spectrum.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Application of comparative precedent analysis to determine that the commercial vehicle hazard, while real and requiring immediate supervisor notification, did not rise to the level of imminence and breadth requiring the full-bore multi-authority campaign mandated in BER 00-5.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (OPQ Construction, present case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: As the Board has noted before, there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
textreferences: First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation BER 00-5
type: PublicEmployeeHeightenedSafetyObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 possessed the capability to recognize that his status as a local government employee with specific responsibility for the bridge created a heightened obligation — compelling both professional and civic action — to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign when the bridge was reopened with inadequate remediation under public pressure.
casecontext: Engineer A as local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the critically unsafe bridge reopened by a non-engineer public works director.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that public employment with specific infrastructure responsibility amplified the duty to contact county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
textreferences: in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Public Pressure Non-Subordination Bridge Closure BER 00-5
type: PublicPressureNon-SubordinationofBridgeClosureSafetyDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 possessed the capability to maintain the bridge closure determination against the 200-signature petition, community rally, and political advocacy for reopening, by clearly articulating the technical basis for the determination to the County Commission and resisting the temptation to bow to public sentiment when great dangers were present.
casecontext: Rally held and petition with approximately 200 signatures presented to County Commission asking that bridge be reopened to limited traffic.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Explanation to the County Commission of the extent of damages and replacement efforts, resulting in the Commission deciding not to reopen the bridge despite organized public pressure.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
textreferences: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Non-Subordination Employment Pressure Scaffolding
type: PublicPressureSafetyDeterminationNon-SubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A may face pressure from his supervisor to proceed with scaffolding design despite the identified commercial vehicle hazard
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Pressure Safety Determination Non-Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from subordinating his professionally grounded safety determination — that the commercial vehicle hazard must be addressed before scaffolding design is finalized — to employment pressure from his supervisor at OPQ Construction directing him to proceed without addressing the hazard, establishing that the supervisor's institutional authority does not supersede Engineer A's professional safety obligation.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation
temporalscope: Throughout the scaffolding design and assembly process
textreferences: By failing to take this action, Engineer A would be ignoring his basic professional and ethical obligations
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.766659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Scaffolding Design Constraint
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's paramount obligation to public safety constrains all other professional decisions regarding the scaffolding design, including compliance with supervisor directives that would result in an unsafe design.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained by the foundational engineering canon to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of construction workers and the passing public in all decisions related to the parkway scaffolding design — prohibiting any design decision, supervisor compliance, or project continuation that knowingly exposes workers and the public to foreseeable fatal or serious injury from illegal commercial vehicle impact.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; BER Case 00-5; BER Case 89-7; BER Case 90-5
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
temporalscope: Throughout the scaffolding design, assembly, and construction period
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.757606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Scaffolding Design
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the safety, health, and welfare of construction workers and the passing public must be held paramount in designing the parkway scaffolding, overriding any employer pressure to finalize a design that does not adequately address the foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard.
casecontext: Engineer A must hold paramount the safety of construction workers and the passing public when designing the scaffolding, recognizing that this obligation supersedes employer directives that would result in an unsafe design.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that his paramount obligation to public health, safety, and welfare requires him to address the foreseeable risk from illegally operating commercial vehicles in his scaffolding design, regardless of employer convenience or cost considerations.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.758774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Public vs Private Employee Safety Escalation Distinction Present Case
type: PublicEmployeevsPrivateEmployeeSafetyEscalationDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Employee vs Private Employee Safety Escalation Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that his status as a private contractor employee — rather than a public employee with specific infrastructure responsibility as in BER 00-5 — meant that a graduated supervisor-first escalation approach was appropriate rather than an immediate full-bore multi-authority campaign.
casecontext: Engineer A employed by OPQ Construction (private contractor) rather than by a local government agency with specific infrastructure responsibility.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Correct calibration of escalation scope based on employment status, distinguishing the present case from BER 00-5 where Engineer A was a public employee with specific bridge responsibility compelling broader immediate action.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (OPQ Construction, present case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
textreferences: in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Restricted-Use Enforcement Gap Design Reliance Constraint
type: Restricted-UseInfrastructureIllegalThird-PartyUseScaffoldingDesignSafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The parkway cloverleaf ramp has limited height and width clearance. Commercial vehicles — which are taller and wider than noncommercial vehicles — have been personally observed by Engineer A operating on the parkway in violation of the restriction. Designing scaffolding clearance only for noncommercial vehicles creates a foreseeable fatal hazard.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Restricted-Use Infrastructure Illegal Third-Party Use Scaffolding Design Safety Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from relying on the parkway's noncommercial restriction as a sufficient safety basis for scaffolding design clearance parameters when personal observation establishes that the restriction is routinely violated and unenforced — requiring that actual observed traffic conditions, not the legal restriction, govern the design safety parameters.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart Q (Scaffolding); FHWA MUTCD Work Zone Safety Standards; professional obligation to design to actual conditions
sourcetext: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
temporalscope: During the scaffolding design phase
textreferences: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.757819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Restricted Parkway Illegal Use Scaffolding Design Parameter Constraint
type: Restricted-UseInfrastructureIllegalThird-PartyUseScaffoldingDesignSafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The parkway is legally restricted to noncommercial vehicles, but Engineer A has personally observed commercial vehicles operating on it. The scaffolding is to be erected on a cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance, making commercial vehicle impact a foreseeable and potentially fatal hazard.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Restricted-Use Infrastructure Illegal Third-Party Use Scaffolding Design Safety Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from designing the parkway scaffolding solely to the parameters of the legal noncommercial restriction when personal observation establishes that commercial vehicles regularly traverse the parkway in violation of that restriction — requiring that the design account for the foreseeable presence of commercial vehicles regardless of the posted restriction.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; OSHA Construction Scaffolding Standards; FHWA MUTCD Work Zone Safety Standards; professional obligation to design to actual observed conditions rather than legal restrictions alone when those restrictions are demonstrably unenforced
sourcetext: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
temporalscope: During the scaffolding design phase, prior to finalization and submission
textreferences: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.757020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Scaffolding Alternative Configuration Presentation Supervisor
type: ScaffoldingAlternativeConfigurationPresentationforTrafficHazardMitigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scaffolding Alternative Configuration Presentation for Traffic Hazard Mitigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to identify and present to his supervisor alternative scaffolding configurations — such as designs with greater setback, enhanced protective barriers, or reduced footprint — that would mitigate the foreseeable risk from illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway.
casecontext: Engineer A must not only notify his supervisor of the hazard but also present viable alternative scaffolding configurations that would reduce the risk to workers from illegally operating commercial vehicles.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to present alternative scaffolding designs to his supervisor that address the commercial vehicle hazard, enabling informed employer decision-making about how to proceed.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.755745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Scaffolding Alternative Design Presentation Constraint
type: CompleteDesignAlternativePresentationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's obligation to present alternative scaffolding designs that mitigate the commercial vehicle hazard is a prerequisite to supervisor decision-making about how to proceed with the scaffolding assignment.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to identify and present to his supervisor alternative scaffolding configurations — such as designs with greater setback from travel lanes, protective barriers, or reduced scaffolding footprint — that would mitigate the commercial vehicle hazard, prohibiting finalization of a single design approach without presenting alternatives that address the identified safety concern.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint; professional obligation to present alternatives when a design approach creates foreseeable safety risks
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
temporalscope: During the scaffolding design phase, prior to supervisor approval and finalization
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.758145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Scaffolding Clearance Traffic Hazard Integration Design
type: ScaffoldingClearanceandTrafficHazardIntegrationDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scaffolding Clearance and Traffic Hazard Integration Design Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the technical capability to design scaffolding for the parkway cloverleaf ramp that accounts for the foreseeable risk of illegally operating commercial vehicles, including specifying appropriate clearance, setback, and protective features.
casecontext: Engineer A is directed to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance, while having personally observed commercial vehicles illegally operating on the parkway.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that the scaffolding design must account for commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway, given the limited height and width clearance of the cloverleaf ramp.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.755115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Supervisor-First Escalation Sequencing Present Case
type: Supervisor-FirstEscalationSequencinginEmploymentContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supervisor-First Escalation Sequencing in Employment Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that, as a private contractor employee, the appropriate first escalation step for the commercial vehicle hazard was immediate notification of the immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction — verbally and in writing — before any direct contact with external DOT or law enforcement authorities.
casecontext: Engineer A employed by OPQ Construction, a private contractor hired by state DOT, designing scaffolding for parkway ramp repair.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Understanding that state DOT officials and law enforcement would need to be advised through Engineer A's supervisor or another appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction, rather than through direct engineer-to-authority contact.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (OPQ Construction, present case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by
textreferences: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Supervisor-Mediated DOT Law Enforcement Notification Parkway Hazard
type: Supervisor-MediatedDOTandLawEnforcementNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is an employee of OPQ Construction, which is under contract with the state DOT, creating an organizational chain of command that governs how external authority notification should be channeled
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Supervisor-Mediated DOT and Law Enforcement Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to ensure that state DOT officials and law enforcement are notified of the commercial vehicle hazard through his supervisor or another appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction as a first step, rather than bypassing the organizational chain of command to contact external authorities directly, while retaining the obligation to escalate directly if the supervisor declines to ensure such notification.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; OPQ Construction organizational structure; State DOT contract requirements
sourcetext: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction so that appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
temporalscope: Following Engineer A's initial supervisor notification and prior to design finalization
textreferences: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction so that appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.765795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response External Escalation Scaffolding Hazard Present Case
type: SupervisorNon-ResponseScaffoldingSafetyDesignFinalizationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faces the possibility that his supervisor may direct him to proceed with scaffolding design without addressing the foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety Design Finalization Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: If Engineer A's supervisor at OPQ Construction declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, Engineer A is constrained from finalizing the scaffolding design and must escalate to state DOT officials, law enforcement, and other appropriate authorities before proceeding.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:32.382321+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction
temporalscope: Following supervisor notification and prior to design finalization, if supervisor declines to act
textreferences: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.766395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Design Finalization Prohibition
type: SupervisorNon-ResponseScaffoldingSafetyDesignFinalizationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's supervisor has directed him to design the scaffolding. If the supervisor refuses to address the commercial vehicle hazard, Engineer A faces the constraint of not being able to ethically finalize the design without escalating to external authorities.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety Design Finalization Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: If Engineer A's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, Engineer A is constrained from finalizing the scaffolding design and must refuse to proceed until the hazard is addressed or escalate to state DOT officials, law enforcement, and the state engineering licensure board.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I (public safety paramount); BER Case 00-5; Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint principles
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
temporalscope: Upon supervisor non-response or refusal to address the identified hazard, and continuing until the hazard is resolved or escalation is complete
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.757311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation
type: SupervisorNon-ResponseConstructionSafetyExternalEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supervisor Non-Response Construction Safety External Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that if his supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, he is obligated to refuse to finalize the unsafe scaffolding design and to escalate the safety concern to the state DOT client and other appropriate external authorities.
casecontext: If OPQ Construction's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard, Engineer A must not acquiesce but must escalate to the state DOT and other appropriate authorities to protect construction workers and the passing public.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to refuse to finalize the scaffolding design and escalate externally if his supervisor fails to respond adequately to the identified commercial vehicle safety hazard.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.756689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Engineering Practice Determination BER 00-5
type: UnlicensedBridgeInspectorEngineeringPracticeDeterminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Engineering Practice Determination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 possessed the capability to determine whether the activities of the retired bridge inspector — who was not a licensed engineer but was directed to examine the bridge and whose assessment formed the basis for the crutch pile remediation decision — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering under applicable state law, and to report that determination to the state engineering licensure board.
casecontext: Retired bridge inspector (non-licensed engineer) directed by non-engineer public works director to examine critically unsafe bridge and whose assessment led to inadequate crutch pile remediation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the retired inspector's structural assessment and remediation recommendation potentially crossed the threshold into unlicensed engineering practice, triggering an obligation to report to the state board.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 00-5)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit.
textreferences: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.769431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Written Notification Town Supervisor Barn Safety BER 07-10
type: WrittenCommunicationFollow-UpAfterVerbalSafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in BER 07-10 possessed the capability to recognize that verbal notification to the town supervisor about the barn structural risk was insufficient, and to follow up with written confirmation restating the concerns, creating a documented record, and establishing a basis for further escalation if corrective action was not taken within a reasonable period.
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted town supervisor about barn structural risk after Jones removed structural columns and footings; supervisor agreed to look into matter but took no action.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that after verbally contacting the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter but took no action, Engineer A should have made a written record and followed up with written confirmation to the town supervisor.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:30:36.200055+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation.
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter, but no action was taken.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Written Supervisor Notification Constraint — Commercial Vehicle Scaffolding Hazard
type: Verbal-OnlySafetyNotificationWrittenFollow-UpConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's concern about commercial vehicles endangering scaffolding workers must be formally documented to establish the basis for escalation if the supervisor fails to respond adequately.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from relying on verbal-only notification to his supervisor regarding the commercial vehicle hazard to scaffolding workers — requiring that notification be made in writing to create a documented record of the identified safety concern and the supervisor's response or non-response.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a; professional obligation to document safety notifications; BER Case 00-5 escalation principles
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
temporalscope: Immediately upon identifying the hazard and prior to design finalization
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.757166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Written Supervisor Notification Illegal Vehicle Hazard
type: WrittenCommunicationFollow-UpAfterVerbalSafetyNotificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the communication capability to promptly notify his supervisor at OPQ Construction in writing of his personal observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway and the resulting foreseeable safety risk to scaffolding workers.
casecontext: Engineer A must notify his supervisor in writing of the commercial vehicle hazard observed during his personal commute, creating a documented record of the safety concern and the basis for further escalation if the supervisor fails to respond.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to document and communicate in writing the observed illegal commercial vehicle traffic and its implications for scaffolding worker safety to his supervisor.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.753901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A directed by supervisor to design scaffolding before Engineer A must decide how to act on safety concerns
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp... Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered.
from entity text: Engineer A directed by supervisor to design scaffolding
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A must decide how to act on safety concerns
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A must decide how to act on safety concer
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A notifies supervisor of safety hazard before design and assembly of inspection and construction scaffolding
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction.
from entity text: Engineer A notifies supervisor of safety hazard
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: design and assembly of inspection and construction scaffolding
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: design and assembly of inspection and construction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A receives bridge inspector telephone call before barricades and signs erected
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In June 2000, Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating this bridge needed to be closed... Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
from entity text: Engineer A receives bridge inspector telephone call
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: barricades and signs erected
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: barricades and signs erected
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A sells property to Jones before Jones proposes barn extension and removes columns/footings
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Four years later, Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones. Later, Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof.
from entity text: Engineer A sells property to Jones
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Jones proposes barn extension and removes columns/footings
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Jones proposes barn extension and removes columns
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor before written follow-up notification to town supervisor
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter, but no action was taken... Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor.
from entity text: Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: written follow-up notification to town supervisor
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: written follow-up notification to town supervisor
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A's personal observations of commercial vehicles on parkway before Engineer A directed to design scaffolding
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Prior to and during this assignment, Engineer A has personally observed commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway on his daily commute.
from entity text: Engineer A's personal observations of commercial vehicles on parkway
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A directed to design scaffolding
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A directed to design scaffolding
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A's personal observations of commercial vehicles on parkway overlaps Engineer A's current scaffolding design assignment
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Prior to and during this assignment, Engineer A has personally observed commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway on his daily commute.
from entity text: Engineer A's personal observations of commercial vehicles on parkway
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: Engineer A's current scaffolding design assignment
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Engineer A s current scaffolding design assignment
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer_Public_Safety_Escalation_Standard_Resource
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Public Safety Escalation Obligations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by
textreferences: state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation
textreferences: there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
usedby: Engineer A and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Governs the graduated escalation pathway Engineer A must follow — from immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction, to state DOT officials, to law enforcement — when commercial vehicles pose hazards to inspection and construction workers, calibrated to the imminence and breadth of the danger
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.748230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Escalate to DOT and Law Enforcement
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
agent relation: or
concept category: Action
foreseen unintended effects: Law enforcement resource demands
foreseen unintended effects: Possible redesign of scaffolding to accommodate commercial vehicle risk if enforcement is deemed insufficient
foreseen unintended effects: Potential friction between OPQ Construction and state DOT
foreseen unintended effects: Project delays due to required corrective measures
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to escalate safety concerns to authorities with power to act when internal channels are insufficient
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to protect construction workers as well as the general public
fulfills obligation text: Professional duty not to proceed with design under known unsafe conditions without seeking corrective action
guided by principle text: Cooperation with public authorities on safety matters
guided by principle text: Graduated escalation proportional to risk severity
guided by principle text: Professional responsibility extends beyond internal organizational boundaries when public safety is at stake
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
has agent: Engineer A (Professional Engineer, OPQ Construction) or OPQ Construction responsible party, escalating to state DOT and law enforcement
has agent note: escalating to state DOT and law enforcement
has mental state: deliberate and duty-driven
intended outcome: Ensure that external authorities with jurisdiction over traffic enforcement and highway safety are informed and can implement corrective measures before scaffolding is assembled, eliminating or mitigating the commercial vehicle hazard
multi agent: true
requires capability text: Ability to communicate safety hazards clearly to non-engineering authorities
requires capability text: Knowledge of regulatory and enforcement authority structure for state parkways
requires capability text: Professional judgment on when internal channels are insufficient
temporal marker: Near future, secondary action if supervisor notification is insufficient
temporal sequence: 15
within competence: true
comment: If internal notification to the supervisor is insufficient or unacted upon, Engineer A or an appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction should notify state department of transportation officials and law enforcement so that corrective measures, such as heightened enforcement, traffic closure, or design accommodation, can be implemented before scaffolding assembly begins.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.768495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Ethical Dilemma — Engineer Obligation Scope in Public Safety
type: EthicalDilemma
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout all cases discussed — BER 00-5, BER 07-10, and the present case
affectedparties: Engineer A (all cases)
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after identifying and understanding the situation, how far their obligation reaches in seeking corrective action
stateclass: Ethical Dilemma
subject: The recurring professional engineering ethical dilemma of determining how far an engineer's obligation reaches in seeking corrective action when public health and safety are impacted
terminatedby: Resolution through appropriate escalation and corrective action in each specific case
textreferences: This case illustrates one of the classic ethical dilemmas faced by professional engineers in their professional practice
textreferences: engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after identifying and understanding the situation, how far their obligation reaches in seeking corrective action
textreferences: there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
triggeringevent: Engineers identifying public safety risks and facing the question of how far their obligation extends in seeking corrective action
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.752740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

FHWA-MUTCD-Work-Zone-Safety
type: HighwayWorkZoneTrafficSafetyStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) — Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Highway Work Zone Traffic Safety Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
usedby: Engineer A and OPQ Construction in planning inspection and repair operations on state parkway ramps
usedincontext: Provides technical standards for traffic control and worker protection in highway work zones, relevant to Engineer A's concern about illegal commercial vehicles endangering workers near scaffolding on the parkway
version: Current FHWA edition
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.745352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

II.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.980992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

III.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Jones New Owner Barn Stakeholder
type: BuildingOwnerSafetyRecommendationRecipient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'property_status': 'Current owner', 'action_taken': 'Structural modification of barn'}
caseinvolvement: Jones purchased the barn from Engineer A and subsequently extended it by removing structural columns and footings, receiving a certificate of occupancy from the town, and later being identified as a recipient of Engineer A's safety notification regarding potential structural collapse risk.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'approved_by', 'target': 'Town'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_notification_from', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
sourcetext: Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
textreferences: Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
textreferences: Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.749121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Jones removes columns and footings before town approves changes and issues certificate of occupancy
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings... The changes were approved by the town and the extension was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued.
from entity text: Jones removes columns and footings
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: town approves changes and issues certificate of occupancy
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: town approves changes and issues certificate of oc
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating professional obligations regarding scaffolding design safety
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount and to address foreseeable risks to construction workers and the public posed by illegal commercial vehicle traffic near proposed scaffolding
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.745083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after identifying and understanding the situation, how far their obligation reaches in seeking corrective action
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation
textreferences: engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after identifying and understanding the situation, how far their obligation reaches in seeking corrective action
usedby: Engineer A and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's ethical obligations regarding public safety escalation when commercial vehicles pose hazards to inspection and construction workers on highway ramps
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.747179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Non-Engineer Authority Directing Bridge Reopening — BER 00-5
type: Non-EngineerAuthorityDirectingPost-ClosureReopeningState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the public works director's decision to have the retired bridge inspector examine the bridge through the reopening with a five-ton limit
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Log truck and tanker operators
affectedparties: Non-engineer public works director
affectedparties: Retired bridge inspector
affectedparties: School bus passengers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
stateclass: Non-Engineer Authority Directing Post-Closure Reopening State
subject: Non-engineer public works director's decision to commission unlicensed bridge inspection and authorize crutch pile installation
terminatedby: Not terminated — bridge was reopened and traffic was flowing with no follow-up inspection
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing and this resulted in significant movement of the bridge
textreferences: No follow-up inspection was undertaken
triggeringevent: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.750572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Non-Engineer Orders Crutch Pile Installation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: BER Case 00-5
foreseen unintended effects: Log trucks, tankers, and other heavy vehicles subsequently crossed the bridge in violation of the five-ton limit
foreseen unintended effects: Reopening without follow-up inspection left the structural adequacy unverified
foreseen unintended effects: Structural solution may be inadequate, as the crutch pile design was not validated by a licensed engineer
fulfills obligation text: Responding to community access needs and political pressure
guided by principle text: Community responsiveness (prioritized inappropriately)
guided by principle text: Licensed engineering practice for public safety decisions
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount (violated)
has agent: Non-engineer Public Works Director
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Restore bridge access to the community by implementing a perceived interim structural fix, responding to community pressure while appearing to address safety concerns
requires capability text: Authority to make public safety determinations within licensure boundaries
requires capability text: Knowledge of load-bearing requirements and structural analysis
requires capability text: Licensed structural engineering judgment for bridge safety determination
temporal marker: BER Case 00-5 reference - subsequent period after bridge closure, before replacement was completed
temporal sequence: 7
violates obligation text: Obligation not to reopen public infrastructure without adequate engineering verification
violates obligation text: Obligation to implement follow-up inspection after structural modification
violates obligation text: Obligation to use licensed engineers for structural safety determinations affecting public safety
violates obligation text: Prohibition on unlicensed practice of engineering (by relying on non-engineer inspector for structural determination)
within competence: false
comment: In BER Case 00-5, a non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector (also not an engineer) examine the bridge and then ordered the installation of two crutch piles and reopened the bridge with a five-ton limit, without follow-up inspection. This is a volitional professional decision with significant ethical implications.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Non-Engineer Orders Crutch Pile Installation (Action 9) → Crutch Piles Installed By Order (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: In BER Case 00-5, a non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector install crutch piles as a temporary structural measure, bypassing qualified engineering judgment on a critically deteriorated structure
cause: Non-Engineer Orders Crutch Pile Installation (Action 9)
counterfactual: If the public works director had been required to obtain a licensed engineer's approval before ordering structural modifications, the crutch pile installation would either have been properly engineered or rejected as insufficient; the outcome would have been materially different
effect: Crutch Piles Installed By Order (Event 5)
necessary factors: Absence of a qualified engineer's review and approval of the crutch pile approach
necessary factors: Availability of a retired bridge inspector willing to carry out the work
necessary factors: Non-engineer public works director having authority to direct field work
necessary factors: The bridge's deteriorated condition creating perceived urgency for a quick fix
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Non-engineer Public Works Director (primary decision-maker); retired bridge inspector who executed the work (secondary); Engineer A or supervising engineer (for not preventing unauthorized structural modification)
sufficient factors: Non-engineer authority + perceived urgency + available unqualified installer = sufficient conditions for unauthorized structural intervention
sufficient factors: The combination bypasses the engineering review process that would normally gate such structural decisions
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Non-Engineer Public Works Director BER 00-5
type: Non-EngineerInfrastructureDecisionMaker
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'authority': 'Public works director'}
caseinvolvement: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector who was not a licensed engineer to examine the bridge, and subsequently made the decision to install two crutch piles and reopen the bridge with a five-ton limit, thereby engaging in or directing unlicensed engineering practice and creating public safety risks.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'directs', 'target': 'Retired Bridge Inspector BER 00-5'}
relationships: {'type': 'overrides', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Maker
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.749477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Notify Supervisor of Hazard
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Professional Engineer, OPQ Construction
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A may face internal professional friction for raising concerns that complicate the project schedule
foreseen unintended effects: Project timeline may be delayed pending safety review
foreseen unintended effects: Supervisor may dismiss the concern, requiring escalation to external authorities
fulfills obligation text: Duty of candor and professional honesty with employer
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to act before unsafe conditions are embedded in the design
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to notify employer of safety hazards known to the engineer
guided by principle text: Professional candor and transparency
guided by principle text: Proportionality of response to level of risk
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
guided by principle text: Working within organizational chain of command before external escalation
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and duty-driven
intended outcome: Alert the supervisor to the commercial vehicle hazard so that appropriate corrective measures can be considered and implemented prior to scaffolding design and assembly, protecting workers and the public
requires capability text: Knowledge of scaffolding safety standards and traffic hazard assessment
requires capability text: Professional judgment regarding hazard severity
requires capability text: Risk communication skills
temporal marker: Immediate future, recommended action before scaffolding design proceeds
temporal sequence: 14
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A should verbally (and in writing if necessary) notify his immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazard posed by illegal commercial vehicles passing the proposed scaffolding site before design and assembly proceeds. This is the primary recommended action identified in the discussion.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.767490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Notify Supervisor of Hazard Action 3 - insufficient response → Escalate to DOT and Law Enforcement Action 4
type: CausalChain
causal language: If internal notification to the supervisor is insufficient or unacted upon, Engineer A or an appropriate party must escalate to DOT and law enforcement to ensure public safety is protected
cause: Notify Supervisor of Hazard (Action 3), insufficient response
counterfactual: If the supervisor had acted promptly and effectively upon notification, external escalation would not be required; the need to escalate is directly caused by the failure of the internal notification to produce adequate corrective action
effect: Escalate to DOT and Law Enforcement (Action 4)
necessary factors: Continued existence of the safety hazard without remediation
necessary factors: Engineer A's ongoing professional obligation to protect public safety beyond internal hierarchy
necessary factors: Prior notification to supervisor having been made (exhausting internal remedy first)
necessary factors: Supervisor's failure to act or inadequate response to the reported hazard
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (primary escalation duty); Supervisor at OPQ Construction (whose inaction necessitates escalation)
sufficient factors: Completed internal notification + supervisor inaction + persistent hazard = sufficient trigger for external escalation
sufficient factors: The ethical imperative to protect public safety overrides organizational loyalty when internal channels fail
within agent control: true

Notify Supervisor of Hazard (Action 3) — insufficient response → Escalate to DOT and Law Enforcement (Action 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

OPQ Construction DOT Inspection Repair Employer
type: ConstructionContractorDOTInspectionRepairEmployer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private construction contractor', 'contract_authority': 'State Department of Transportation', 'project_scope': 'Highway and parkway on and off ramp inspection and repair'}
caseinvolvement: Construction contractor hired by the state DOT to inspect and repair highway and parkway ramps, employing Engineer A and directing him through a supervisor to design scaffolding for a parkway cloverleaf ramp, bearing employer authority over the design assignment and obligations to respond to safety concerns raised by its employed engineer.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'contracted_by', 'target': 'State Department of Transportation'}
relationships: {'type': 'directs_through_supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Construction Contractor DOT Inspection Repair Employer
sourcetext: OPQ Construction is a construction contractor hired by the state department of transportation to inspect and repair a series of state highway and parkway 'on and off' ramps
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding
textreferences: OPQ Construction is a construction contractor hired by the state department of transportation to inspect and repair a series of state highway and parkway 'on and off' ramps
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.747013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

OPQ Construction Supervisor Commercial Vehicle Hazard Response Constraint
type: Non-EngineerAuthoritySafetyOverrideResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: If the OPQ Construction supervisor directs Engineer A to proceed with scaffolding design without addressing the commercial vehicle hazard, Engineer A is constrained from complying and must escalate.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: OPQ Construction Supervisor
constraintclass: Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: The OPQ Construction supervisor is constrained from directing Engineer A to proceed with scaffolding design without addressing the foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard — and Engineer A is constrained from acquiescing to such a directive — establishing that the supervisor's institutional authority does not override Engineer A's professional safety obligation to design to actual observed conditions.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:35.894074+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint; BER Case 00-5
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer A's notification of the commercial vehicle hazard
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.758467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

OPQ Construction Supervisor Commercial Vehicle Hazard Response Safety Obligation
type: CollegialConcernResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Concern Response Capability
capabilitystatement: The OPQ Construction supervisor possesses the capability to receive and respond to Engineer A's notification of the commercial vehicle hazard with professional seriousness — taking appropriate steps to address the safety concern, including modifying the scaffolding design requirements, notifying the state DOT, or implementing traffic control measures.
casecontext: Upon receiving Engineer A's notification of the commercial vehicle hazard, the OPQ Construction supervisor must respond appropriately to protect construction workers and the passing public, rather than dismissing or ignoring the safety concern.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The supervisor's obligation to take appropriate responsive action upon receiving Engineer A's written notification of the foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard to scaffolding workers.
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:22:44.720721+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: OPQ Construction Supervisor
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.759200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

OPQ Construction Supervisor Employer Relationship
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Supervisory employee of OPQ Construction', 'authority': "Directs Engineer A's design work assignments"}
caseinvolvement: Supervisor at OPQ Construction who directs Engineer A to design the scaffolding for the parkway cloverleaf ramp, bearing authority over Engineer A's design assignments and obligations to receive and act upon safety concerns raised by the engineer.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'OPQ Construction'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.746500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

OSHA-Construction-Scaffolding-Standard
type: ConstructionScaffoldingSafetyStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart Q — Scaffolds
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:15:48.490492+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Construction Scaffolding Safety Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance
usedby: Engineer A in designing scaffolding for parkway cloverleaf ramp inspection and repair
usedincontext: Establishes minimum safety requirements for scaffolding design and erection in construction environments, applicable to Engineer A's task of designing inspection and construction scaffolding on a parkway ramp with limited clearance
version: Current federal regulation
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.745216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Obtain Bridge Replacement Authorization
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Local Government Engineer, BER Case 00-5
foreseen unintended effects: Extended period of community inconvenience during the replacement process
foreseen unintended effects: Lengthy bureaucratic review process involving multiple state and federal departments before funds could be released
fulfills obligation text: Duty as public employee to advocate for adequate resources to address known structural deficiencies
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to pursue permanent corrective action, not merely temporary mitigation
guided by principle text: Permanent solutions preferred over temporary fixes for life-safety hazards
guided by principle text: Professional advocacy within institutional processes
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and proactive
intended outcome: Secure institutional and financial authorization for permanent bridge replacement to eliminate the structural hazard and restore safe public access
requires capability text: Advocacy skills within bureaucratic systems
requires capability text: Knowledge of governmental authorization and funding processes
requires capability text: Structural engineering judgment to justify replacement over repair
temporal marker: BER Case 00-5 reference - within three weeks of initial bridge closure
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: In BER Case 00-5, within three weeks of the initial closure, Engineer A successfully obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced, initiating the formal process for a permanent structural solution to the safety hazard.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.770537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Passing Public Parkway Safety Stakeholder
type: ParticipantRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'General public using parkway', 'safety_exposure': 'Risk from scaffolding interaction with illegal commercial vehicle traffic'}
caseinvolvement: Members of the general public, including drivers of both permitted and illegally operating commercial vehicles, who travel on the parkway and whose safety is implicated by the scaffolding design and the presence of illegal commercial vehicle traffic, establishing Engineer A's broader public responsibility obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:06.239277+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'safety_obligation_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Participant Role
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.747453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985570
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 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: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: At what point does Engineer A's incidental commute observation of illegal commercial vehicle use transform from a personal observation into a professional duty to act, and does that transformation occur before or after accepting the scaffolding design assignment?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Is Engineer A ethically prohibited from completing, signing, or sealing the scaffolding design plans if the commercial vehicle hazard has not been formally addressed or resolved prior to finalization, regardless of supervisor response?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does Engineer A bear any ethical obligation to notify the state department of transportation directly — as the ultimate client and the authority responsible for parkway enforcement — if OPQ Construction's supervisor fails to act on the reported commercial vehicle hazard?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should Engineer A proactively present alternative scaffolding design configurations that account for foreseeable illegal commercial vehicle clearance as part of the initial design submission, rather than waiting for the supervisor to resolve the enforcement gap?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation to OPQ Construction — which requires Engineer A to execute the assigned scaffolding design — conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when the design assignment cannot be safely completed without first resolving a foreseeable illegal traffic hazard that the employer has not yet acknowledged?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold principle — which requires a credible, substantiated basis before triggering external reporting — conflict with the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle when Engineer A's only evidence of the commercial vehicle hazard is informal personal observation rather than documented enforcement data?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Proportional Escalation Obligation — which calibrates Engineer A's response to a less severe hazard than the condemned bridge in BER 00-5 — conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when the parkway scaffolding hazard, though less certain, involves simultaneous risk to both construction workers and passing members of the public?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Written Documentation Requirement — which mandates that Engineer A formalize the safety notification in writing if necessary — conflict with the Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting principle, which might counsel a more measured, initially verbal approach given that the hazard is foreseeable but not yet imminent or verified?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have a categorical duty to report the commercial vehicle hazard to their supervisor regardless of whether the supervisor is likely to act on it, given that the NSPE Code imposes an unconditional obligation to hold public safety paramount?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the relatively low probability that an illegally operating commercial vehicle will actually strike the scaffolding during the construction window reduce Engineer A's ethical obligation to escalate beyond the supervisor, or does the severity of potential harm — worker fatalities and public casualties — override probability calculations entirely?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, does Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a competent engineer by treating a personal commute observation as professionally actionable safety data, rather than dismissing it as outside the formal scope of the design assignment?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.982971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: Comparing the present case deontologically with BER 00-5 and BER 07-10, does the graduated nature of Engineer A's escalation obligation — supervisor first, then external authorities — reflect a principled hierarchy of duties, or does it risk subordinating the categorical public safety duty to procedural deference in a way that could prove ethically indefensible if the supervisor fails to act?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had completed and sealed the scaffolding design without disclosing the commercial vehicle hazard to the supervisor, and a commercial vehicle subsequently struck the scaffolding injuring workers, would Engineer A bear personal ethical and professional liability for having signed plans that were not in conformity with safety requirements — even though the illegal vehicle use was an external enforcement failure rather than a design defect?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A's supervisor had dismissed the commercial vehicle hazard concern and directed Engineer A to proceed with the original scaffolding design without modification, would Engineer A's ethical obligations — informed by the BER 00-5 precedent of resisting non-engineer authority overrides — require immediate escalation to the state DOT or law enforcement, even at the risk of employment consequences?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had proactively redesigned the scaffolding to accommodate commercial vehicle clearances without first notifying the supervisor of the underlying hazard, would that design adaptation alone satisfy Engineer A's ethical obligations, or would the failure to formally disclose the illegal traffic pattern to the supervisor and the DOT constitute an independent ethical breach — leaving the enforcement gap unaddressed?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had observed the illegal commercial vehicle use not during personal commutes but only through a single incidental sighting on the day of the design assignment, would the threshold for triggering a formal safety reporting obligation be meaningfully different — and does the repeated, pattern-based nature of Engineer A's observations strengthen or merely clarify an obligation that would exist regardless of observation frequency?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.983288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Reinstall Permanent Barricades After Removal
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Local Government Engineer, BER Case 00-5
foreseen unintended effects: Continued community frustration and potential escalating resistance
foreseen unintended effects: Possibility of further tampering with permanent barricades
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
fulfills obligation text: Obligation not to bow to public pressure when fundamental safety is at stake
fulfills obligation text: Persistent duty to maintain protective measures against known hazard
guided by principle text: Engineers must not yield to social pressure when safety is at risk
guided by principle text: Professional persistence in the face of public resistance
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and persistent
intended outcome: Restore the safety closure of the bridge with more durable barriers that are harder to remove, maintaining public protection against the structural hazard despite community resistance
requires capability text: Authority to maintain public safety closures
requires capability text: Judgment on appropriate barrier specifications
requires capability text: Persistence under public pressure
temporal marker: BER Case 00-5 reference - following Monday after initial closure
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: In BER Case 00-5, after discovering on the following Monday that barricades had been dumped in the river and the closed sign removed, Engineer A directed the installation of more permanent barricades and signs to restore the bridge closure.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.769472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.981211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:51:34.985906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Retired Bridge Inspector BER 00-5
type: UnlicensedBridgeInspectorPerformingEngineeringAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (not an engineer)', 'status': 'Retired bridge inspector'}
caseinvolvement: A retired bridge inspector who was not a licensed engineer was directed by the non-engineer public works director to examine the structurally compromised bridge, and whose findings were used to justify the decision to install crutch piles and reopen the bridge, thereby engaging in unlicensed engineering practice and triggering Engineer A's obligation to report the conduct to the state licensing board.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'Non-Engineer Public Works Director BER 00-5'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_report_by', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Performing Engineering Assessment
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.749629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Safety Hazard Condition Exists
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Do_No_Harm_Constraint
activates constraint: Immediate_Hazard_Notification_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Project cannot safely proceed under normal parameters; Engineer A is ethically and professionally blocked from proceeding with standard design without addressing the hazard; the situation has crossed from concern to actionable danger
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Known_Hazard_Formally
creates obligation: Escalate_To_DOT_And_Law_Enforcement_If_Unresolved
creates obligation: Immediate_Notification_Of_Supervisor
creates obligation: Refuse_To_Design_Without_Hazard_Mitigation
emergency status: critical
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Concurrent with scaffolding assignment; prior to design and assembly
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: critical
comment: The combination of commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway and the planned scaffolding installation creates an objectively dangerous condition: overweight or oversized vehicles passing through or near active construction scaffolding not designed for such loads or clearances. This is the core hazardous state that drives the ethical dilemma.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Scaffolding Assignment Received
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Competent_Performance_Constraint
activates constraint: Employer_Loyalty_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_In_Design_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A now holds dual role: observer of ongoing hazard and designer of infrastructure vulnerable to that hazard; conflict between employer obligations and public safety obligations becomes structurally embedded
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Account_For_Known_Hazards_In_Design
creates obligation: Design_Scaffolding_To_Safe_Standards
creates obligation: Report_Hazard_That_Affects_Design_Safety
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Beginning of current assignment period
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A is assigned by OPQ Construction to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a parkway cloverleaf ramp, placing him in direct professional proximity to the hazard he has already observed. This assignment fuses his personal knowledge with formal professional responsibility.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Supervisor Directs Scaffolding Design
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: OPQ Construction Manager
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A may be placed in a position of designing scaffolding under unsafe conditions without guidance
foreseen unintended effects: Potential failure to account for illegal commercial vehicle traffic hazard
fulfills obligation text: Contractual obligation to state DOT to initiate assigned work
fulfills obligation text: Organizational duty to direct subordinate engineers on project tasks
guided by principle text: Contractual compliance
guided by principle text: Organizational efficiency
guided by principle text: Project schedule adherence
has agent: Engineer A's Supervisor
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Fulfill OPQ Construction's contractual obligation to the state department of transportation by initiating scaffolding design for the parkway ramp
raises obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
raises obligation text: Obligation to assess site-specific risks prior to directing engineering work
raises obligation text: Obligation to ensure worker safety before assigning design tasks in potentially hazardous conditions
requires capability text: Engineering task delegation
requires capability text: Project management judgment
requires capability text: Site hazard awareness
temporal marker: Current moment, before scaffolding design begins
temporal sequence: 12
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A's supervisor at OPQ Construction directs Engineer A to design inspection and construction scaffolding for the parkway cloverleaf ramp without apparent consideration of the commercial vehicle hazard. This constitutes a volitional professional decision to assign the design task and implicitly set its scope.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.766453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Supervisor Directs Scaffolding Design (Action 1) + Commercial Vehicles Observed Illegally (Event 1) → Safety Hazard Condition Exists (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The combination of commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway and the planned scaffolding installation creates a safety hazard condition
cause: Supervisor Directs Scaffolding Design (Action 1) + Commercial Vehicles Observed Illegally (Event 1)
counterfactual: If commercial vehicles were not illegally using the parkway, scaffolding alone would not create the same elevated hazard; conversely, if no scaffolding were planned, commercial vehicles alone would not trigger Engineer A's specific ethical obligation in this context
effect: Safety Hazard Condition Exists (Event 3)
necessary factors: Absence of existing traffic controls addressing commercial vehicle intrusion
necessary factors: Commercial vehicles illegally present on parkway
necessary factors: Engineer A's personal observation confirming the illegal vehicle presence
necessary factors: Scaffolding assignment creating physical obstruction or proximity to traffic
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A's Supervisor at OPQ Construction (primary initiator); commercial vehicle operators (contributing party)
sufficient factors: Engineer A's direct observation transforms potential hazard into known, documented hazard
sufficient factors: Scaffolding design assignment + ongoing illegal commercial vehicle use = foreseeable collision/safety risk
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.744326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Town Supervisor BER 07-10
type: CountyBuildingOfficialCertificateofOccupancyAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Municipal official', 'action_taken': 'No corrective action after verbal notification'}
caseinvolvement: The town supervisor held authority in the jurisdiction over the barn structure, received Engineer A's verbal notification of potential structural collapse risk, agreed to look into the matter but took no action, and was identified as the appropriate recipient of written follow-up notifications and escalation by Engineer A.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'authority_over', 'target': 'Jones New Owner Barn Stakeholder'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_notification_from', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority
sourcetext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter, but no action was taken
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter, but no action was taken
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.749293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Unlicensed_Practice_Reporting_Standard_Resource
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Reporting of Unlicensed Engineering Practice
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:38.033984+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
textreferences: Engineer A should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5
usedincontext: Applied in BER Case 00-5 to establish Engineer A's obligation to determine whether the retired bridge inspector's activities constituted unlicensed practice of engineering reportable to the state licensing board; cited as part of the broader escalation framework
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.748371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

authorization for bridge replacement obtained before state and federal transportation department reviews and tasks
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced. Several departments in the state and federal transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks before the funds could be used.
from entity text: authorization for bridge replacement obtained
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: state and federal transportation department reviews and tasks
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: state and federal transportation department review
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

barn designed and built by Engineer A before Engineer A sells property to Jones
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property. Four years later, Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones.
from entity text: barn designed and built by Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A sells property to Jones
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A sells property to Jones
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

barricades and signs erected on Friday before barricades found dumped in the river on Monday
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon... On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river.
from entity text: barricades and signs erected on Friday
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: barricades found dumped in the river on Monday
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: barricades found dumped in the river on Monday
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

barricades found dumped on Monday before more permanent barricades and signs installed
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river... More permanent barricades and signs were installed.
from entity text: barricades found dumped on Monday
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: more permanent barricades and signs installed
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: more permanent barricades and signs installed
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

bridge reopened with five-ton limit before log trucks and tankers crossing regularly
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken. Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing... Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis.
from entity text: bridge reopened with five-ton limit
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: log trucks and tankers crossing regularly
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: log trucks and tankers crossing regularly
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

certificate of occupancy issued before Engineer A learns of the extension
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The changes were approved by the town and the extension was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued. Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse.
from entity text: certificate of occupancy issued
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A learns of the extension
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A learns of the extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

corrective action implemented (e.g., heightened law enforcement, traffic closure) before design and assembly of inspection and construction scaffolding
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction.
from entity text: corrective action implemented (e.g., heightened law enforcement, traffic closure)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: design and assembly of inspection and construction scaffolding
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: design and assembly of inspection and construction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881151+00:00
value: The imminent and widespread nature of the bridge collapse risk required immediate multi-authority escalation rather than a measured graduated response

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882765+00:00
value: The County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's technical explanation, demonstrating that professional safety determinations should prevail over public pressure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882872+00:00
value: The obligation to report unlicensed practice to the licensing board prevailed over any deference to the non-engineer public works director's authority

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.883222+00:00
value: The limited but real nature of the danger in the present case calibrates the reporting obligation to immediate supervisor notification with probable DOT/law enforcement follow-up, not a full multi-authority campaign

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882416+00:00
value: The imminent and widespread nature of the bridge collapse risk required immediate multi-authority escalation rather than a measured graduated response

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.880645+00:00
value: The imminent and widespread nature of the bridge collapse risk required immediate multi-authority escalation rather than a measured graduated response

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.878478+00:00
value: The County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's technical explanation, demonstrating that professional safety determinations should prevail over public pressure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881307+00:00
value: The County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's technical explanation, demonstrating that professional safety determinations should prevail over public pressure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.65
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.880163+00:00
value: The County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's technical explanation, demonstrating that professional safety determinations should prevail over public pressure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.878650+00:00
value: The obligation to report unlicensed practice to the licensing board prevailed over any deference to the non-engineer public works director's authority

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881762+00:00
value: The obligation to report unlicensed practice to the licensing board prevailed over any deference to the non-engineer public works director's authority

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881662+00:00
value: The measured nature of the risk permitted a graduated escalation with deadlines before escalating to county/state building officials

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.878817+00:00
value: Direct notification to the affected property owner was required as a first step before or concurrent with regulatory notification, because Jones was the party most immediately exposed to the risk

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881556+00:00
value: Direct notification to the affected property owner was required as a first step before or concurrent with regulatory notification, because Jones was the party most immediately exposed to the risk

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.880338+00:00
value: Direct notification to the affected property owner was required as a first step before or concurrent with regulatory notification, because Jones was the party most immediately exposed to the risk

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882985+00:00
value: Direct notification to the affected property owner was required as a first step before or concurrent with regulatory notification, because Jones was the party most immediately exposed to the risk

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881438+00:00
value: Persistent escalation through written follow-up and deadline-setting was required to ensure the safety concern was adequately addressed

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882518+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation is subordinate to public welfare paramount when the assigned design approach creates an unmitigated foreseeable risk to workers and the public

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.880779+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation is subordinate to public welfare paramount when the assigned design approach creates an unmitigated foreseeable risk to workers and the public

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882310+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation is fulfilled by proceeding with the assignment while proactively notifying the supervisor of the safety hazard, not by proceeding without notification

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.878980+00:00
value: Good faith safety concern threshold obligation requires Engineer A to escalate beyond his supervisor if the hazard is not addressed, because the potential harm to workers and the public is severe and foreseeable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.883133+00:00
value: Good faith safety concern threshold obligation requires Engineer A to escalate beyond his supervisor if the hazard is not addressed, because the potential harm to workers and the public is severe and foreseeable

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881866+00:00
value: The limited but real nature of the danger in the present case calibrates the reporting obligation to immediate supervisor notification with probable DOT/law enforcement follow-up, not a full multi-authority campaign

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.7
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.880507+00:00
value: The limited but real nature of the danger in the present case calibrates the reporting obligation to immediate supervisor notification with probable DOT/law enforcement follow-up, not a full multi-authority campaign

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882654+00:00
value: Non-acquiescence obligation overrides the faithful agent obligation when the supervisor's direction would result in a design that Engineer A has determined places workers and the public at material risk

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881028+00:00
value: The faithful agent obligation is fulfilled by proceeding with the assignment while proactively notifying the supervisor of the safety hazard, not by proceeding without notification

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.878259+00:00
value: Non-acquiescence obligation overrides the faithful agent obligation when the supervisor's direction would result in a design that Engineer A has determined places workers and the public at material risk

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.879922+00:00
value: Non-acquiescence obligation overrides the faithful agent obligation when the supervisor's direction would result in a design that Engineer A has determined places workers and the public at material risk

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882078+00:00
value: Proactive disclosure is required before work begins so that appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the scaffolding

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.879170+00:00
value: The limited but real nature of the danger in the present case calibrates the reporting obligation to immediate supervisor notification with probable DOT/law enforcement follow-up, not a full multi-authority campaign

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.877934+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation is subordinate to public welfare paramount when the assigned design approach creates an unmitigated foreseeable risk to workers and the public

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.879330+00:00
value: Faithful agent obligation is subordinate to public welfare paramount when the assigned design approach creates an unmitigated foreseeable risk to workers and the public

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.882180+00:00
value: Construction safety awareness requires proactive notification and design consideration to protect workers from foreseeable traffic hazards

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:36:24.881972+00:00
value: Contextual calibration requires Engineer A to escalate beyond his supervisor if the hazard is not addressed, because the potential harm is severe even though no incidents have been confirmed

detailed inspection report delivered before authorization for bridge replacement obtained
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Within a few days, a detailed inspection report... indicated seven pilings required replacement. Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced.
from entity text: detailed inspection report delivered
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: authorization for bridge replacement obtained
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: authorization for bridge replacement obtained
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

environmental, geological, right-of-way studies overlaps preliminary site investigation studies
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Preliminary site investigation studies were begun. Environmental, geological, right-of-way, and other studies were also performed.
from entity text: environmental, geological, right-of-way studies
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: preliminary site investigation studies
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: preliminary site investigation studies
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

more permanent barricades installed before detailed inspection report delivered
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: More permanent barricades and signs were installed... Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
from entity text: more permanent barricades installed
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: detailed inspection report delivered
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: detailed inspection report delivered
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

nonengineer public works director decision to install crutch piles before bridge reopened with five-ton limit
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector... examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit.
from entity text: nonengineer public works director decision to install crutch piles
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: bridge reopened with five-ton limit
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: bridge reopened with five-ton limit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

petition with 200 signatures presented to County Commission before County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission... The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
from entity text: petition with 200 signatures presented to County Commission
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

preliminary site investigation studies after County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge. Preliminary site investigation studies were begun. Environmental, geological, right-of-way, and other studies were also performed.
from entity text: preliminary site investigation studies
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A maintained the bridge closure recommendation against a 200-signature petition and community rally, and the County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's explanation of the structural dangers

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's personal observation of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway during his commute — made outside the scope of his contracted engineering work — constitutes an incidental observation that he is obligated to discl

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's personal observation of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway during his commute — made outside the scope of his contracted engineering work — constitutes an incidental observation that he is obligated to discl

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A should identify and present to his supervisor alternative scaffolding configurations — such as designs with greater setback from the travel lane, impact barriers, or reduced footprint — that mitigate the commercial vehicle strike

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A and OPQ Construction should consider and present multiple alternative approaches to addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — including heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, or a design accommodating commercial vehicles —

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, in designing scaffolding for a parkway ramp with limited height and width clearance, must account for the foreseeable risk that illegally operating commercial vehicles — observed during his personal commute — could strike the sc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's recognition that commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway create a safety hazard for construction and inspection employees working on the scaffolding represents the application of construction safety awareness in the sca

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must document in writing his notification to his supervisor regarding the commercial vehicle hazard on the parkway, creating a clear and unambiguous record that the concern was raised, the basis for it, and the supervisor's respo

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's notification to the OPQ Construction supervisor about commercial vehicle hazards should be in writing if necessary to create an unambiguous and actionable record of the safety concern

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's notification to the OPQ Construction supervisor about commercial vehicle hazards should be in writing if necessary to create an unambiguous and actionable record of the safety concern

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recognizes that the scaffolding design for the parkway cloverleaf ramp poses a foreseeable risk to construction workers and passing members of the public if illegally operating commercial vehicles strike the scaffolding, and that

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's obligation to protect construction workers and passing public from commercial vehicle hazards while performing scaffolding work on parkway ramps represents the paramount public welfare obligation in the present case

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must proactively communicate the commercial vehicle hazard to the OPQ Construction supervisor and probable DOT/law enforcement officials before proceeding with scaffolding design and assembly, without waiting for harm to material

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The present case's commercial vehicle hazard to scaffolding workers, while significant, is less imminent and widespread than the BER 00-5 bridge collapse risk, requiring immediate supervisor notification and probable DOT/law enforcement not

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board's analysis explicitly calibrates Engineer A's reporting obligation in the present case to the limited nature of the danger compared to BER 00-5, concluding that the present case requires immediate supervisor notification and proba

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must calibrate the scope and urgency of his safety reporting to the nature of his observation: personal observation of illegal commercial vehicles without confirmed strike incidents generates an obligation to notify his superviso

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's personal observation of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway, combined with his professional judgment that these vehicles could strike the scaffolding and endanger workers and the public, constitutes a good fa

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, Engineer A must refuse to finalize the scaffolding design without adequate safety measures, and must escalate the concern to higher authority w

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, Engineer A must refuse to finalize the scaffolding design without adequate safety measures, and must escalate the concern to higher authority w

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER 00-5 bridge collapse risk — imminent, widespread, and involving a 280-foot bridge 30 feet above a stream with rotten pilings — required a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign to state/federal transportation officials, licen

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After the non-engineer public works director overrode Engineer A's bridge safety determination and the crutch pile solution was implemented without adequate engineering review, Engineer A was required to escalate to state/federal transporta

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's immediate closure of the critically unsafe bridge with rotten pilings, maintenance of the closure against public pressure, and pursuit of multi-authority escalation when the closure was compromised by non-engineer decisions

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A maintained the bridge closure recommendation against a 200-signature petition and community rally, and the County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's explanation of the structural dangers

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was directed to assess whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and directing the crutch pile solution — constituted unlicensed engineering practice, and to report to the state licensing board if s

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The non-engineer public works director's decision to have a retired bridge inspector (not a licensed engineer) examine the bridge and implement a crutch pile solution without proper engineering review represented an improper subordination o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A as a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge bore a heightened obligation — beyond that of a private consulting engineer — to pursue the bridge safety concern through all available instituti

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor about the barn structural risk was insufficient; written notification to both the town supervisor and the new owner Jones was required to create an unambiguous and actionable record

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was required to notify Jones, the new barn owner, directly in writing of the structural safety concerns arising from the column and footing removal, in addition to notifying the town supervisor

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor produced no action, Engineer A was required to follow up in writing, set a deadline for response, and escalate to county or state building officials if the deadline passed withou

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The BER 07-10 barn structural risk — significant but not imminent, affecting one property — required a measured escalation: written notification to owner and supervisor, followed by deadline-setting and escalation to county/state building o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A and OPQ Construction should consider and present multiple alternative approaches to addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — including heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, or a design accommodating commercial vehicles —

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A and OPQ Construction should consider and present multiple alternative approaches to addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — including heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, or a design accommodating commercial vehicles —

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to report to his supervisor at OPQ Construction his personal observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway — made during his daily commute — because those observations create a foreseeable sa

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to report to his supervisor at OPQ Construction the safety hazard he personally observed during his commute — specifically, that commercial vehicles were illegally operating on the noncommercial parkway where scaffo

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer A's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, Engineer A is obligated to refuse to finalize the scaffolding design without adequate safety measures and, if necessary, to escalate the safety

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of construction workers and the passing public in designing the parkway scaffolding, ensuring that the design accounts for all foreseeable hazards — including the ris

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to immediately notify his supervisor at OPQ Construction verbally and in writing of the safety hazards to construction employees and others from commercial vehicles illegally operating on the parkway, and to ensure

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate his safety response to the present scaffolding/commercial vehicle hazard against the spectrum established by BER 00-5 (full-bore multi-authority campaign for imminent widespread bridge collapse) and BER

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to identify and present to his supervisor at OPQ Construction a range of corrective action options for addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — including heightened law enforcement, traffic closure of affected exi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to promptly notify his supervisor at OPQ Construction in writing of the commercial vehicle hazard he observed on the parkway, creating a documented record of the notification so that the supervisor could take approp

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to work with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the original inspection report to determine whether the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution would be structurally adequate, and

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to immediately press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit on the bridge reopened under the crutch pile solution, and if that escalation was ineffective, to escalate further

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to determine whether the activities of the retired bridge inspector — who was not a licensed engineer but was directed to examine the bridge and whose assessment was used to justify the crutch pile solut

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to maintain the bridge closure determination against the 200-signature petition, community rally, and political pressure for reopening, and to explain the technical basis for the closure to the County Co

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to identify and present to his supervisor alternative scaffolding configurations — such as designs with greater setback from the travel lane, protective barriers, or reduced construction footprint — that would reduce

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign — contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure boar

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER 07-10 was obligated, after setting a reasonable deadline for corrective action by the town supervisor, to escalate the barn structural safety concern to county or state building officials if the town supervisor failed to t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER 07-10 was obligated to notify Jones, the new barn owner, in writing of the perceived structural deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, recognizing that Jones was the party most immediately

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A in BER 07-10 was obligated to follow up his verbal notification to the town supervisor about the barn structural risk with written confirmation restating the concern, to make a written record of all communications with both the p

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Upon receiving Engineer A's notification of the commercial vehicle hazard on the parkway, the OPQ Construction supervisor is obligated to take appropriate action to address the identified safety risk — including directing design modificatio

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to design the parkway cloverleaf ramp scaffolding with sufficient clearance, setback, or protective features to account for the foreseeable risk that commercial vehicles — though prohibited — may illegally traverse t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to promptly notify his supervisor at OPQ Construction in writing of his personal observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway, the foreseeable safety risk those vehicles pose to construction

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that state DOT officials and law enforcement were notified of the commercial vehicle hazard — either through his supervisor or another responsible party at OPQ Construction — before scaffolding design was

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that appropriate corrective action addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — such as heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, or design accommodation — was considered and implemented before finalizing

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to account in the scaffolding design for the foreseeable risk that commercial vehicles — prohibited on the parkway but observed to be illegally traversing it — might nonetheless pass through the worksite, and to des

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, if his supervisor at OPQ Construction declined to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, to refuse to finalize the scaffolding design without adequate safety measures and, if necessary, to escala

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to assess whether his personal observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway — combined with his professional judgment about the resulting scaffolding safety risk — rise to the threshold requ

state and federal transportation department reviews before funds released for bridge replacement
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Several departments in the state and federal transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks before the funds could be used.
from entity text: state and federal transportation department reviews
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: funds released for bridge replacement
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: funds released for bridge replacement
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

written confirmation to town supervisor before escalation to county or state building officials if no action taken
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation. If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time... Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials.
from entity text: written confirmation to town supervisor
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: escalation to county or state building officials if no action taken
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: escalation to county or state building officials i
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.771509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

County Commission BER 00-5
type: CityCouncilLegislativeAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Resistance to Public Pressure BER 00-5 Bridge Petition
attributes: {'role_type': 'Elected county legislative body', 'decision': 'Decided not to reopen the bridge'}
caseinvolvement: The County Commission received Engineer A's explanation of bridge damages and replacement efforts, was presented with a petition of approximately 200 signatures requesting reopening of the bridge, and decided not to reopen the bridge, exercising legislative authority over the infrastructure decision.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'authority_over', 'target': 'Non-Engineer Public Works Director BER 00-5'}
relationships: {'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: City Council Legislative Authority
sourcetext: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.749778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: OPQ Construction Supervisor Commercial Vehicle Hazard Response Obligation
attributes: {'employer': 'OPQ Construction', 'role_type': 'Immediate supervisor'}
caseinvolvement: The immediate supervisor of Engineer A at OPQ Construction is the primary recipient of Engineer A's safety hazard notification regarding commercial vehicles on the parkway ramps, and bears responsibility to escalate the concern to state DOT officials and law enforcement as appropriate to enable corrective action before scaffolding design and assembly proceeds.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'escalates_to', 'target': 'State DOT Infrastructure Repair Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards
textreferences: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.750229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Bridge Closure Public Pressure Override — BER 00-5
type: PublicPressureOverridingEngineeringSafetyClosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the rally and petition presentation through the County Commission's decision not to reopen the bridge
affectedparties: County Commission
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Local residents
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission
stateclass: Public Pressure Overriding Engineering Safety Closure State
subject: Engineer A's bridge closure decision and subsequent County Commission response
terminatedby: County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge (pressure resisted in this instance)
textreferences: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge
triggeringevent: Rally held and petition with approximately 200 signatures presented to County Commission requesting bridge reopening
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.750400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Concern — BER 07-10
type: CertificateofOccupancyIssuedDespiteStructuralDeficiencyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From issuance of the certificate of occupancy through Engineer A's notification to the town supervisor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones (new owner)
affectedparties: Town building authority
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The changes were approved by the town and the extension was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued
stateclass: Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency State
subject: Town's issuance of certificate of occupancy for the barn extension despite structural modifications that Engineer A assessed as potentially dangerous
terminatedby: Not terminated — town supervisor agreed to look into the matter but no action was taken
textreferences: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: The changes were approved by the town and the extension was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued
triggeringevent: The changes were approved by the town and the extension was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued, despite removal of structural columns and footings
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.751828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship with OPQ Construction and State DOT
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — active during the inspection and repair contract period
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: OPQ Construction
affectedparties: State Department of Transportation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is a professional engineer employed by OPQ Construction.
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with OPQ Construction, which is under contract with the state department of transportation
terminatedby: Completion or termination of the contract or employment
textreferences: Engineer A is a professional engineer employed by OPQ Construction.
textreferences: OPQ Construction is a construction contractor hired by the state department of transportation to inspect and repair a series of state highway and parkway 'on and off' ramps.
triggeringevent: OPQ Construction's engagement by the state department of transportation and Engineer A's employment by OPQ Construction
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.746657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Observed Illegal Commercial Vehicle Use Creating Scaffolding Hazard
type: ObservedIllegalThird-PartyConductCreatingWorksiteHazardState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A observed commercial vehicles on the parkway through personal commuting, continuing through the scaffolding design assignment, until the hazard is disclosed and addressed
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Inspection and construction employees
affectedparties: OPQ Construction
affectedparties: Parkway users
affectedparties: State Department of Transportation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
stateclass: Observed Illegal Third-Party Conduct Creating Worksite Hazard State
subject: Engineer A's professional situation regarding the parkway scaffolding design assignment
terminatedby: Disclosure of the observed hazard to supervisor and client, followed by design modification or enforcement action
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's personal observation of commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway, combined with the supervisor's direction to design inspection and construction scaffolding for the parkway cloverleaf ramp
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.745846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety at Risk — Worker and Public Endangerment from Scaffolding Proximity to Illegal Traffic
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A identifies the hazard through the design phase, until protective measures are implemented or the design is modified
affectedparties: Construction and inspection employees
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: OPQ Construction
affectedparties: Parkway users
affectedparties: State Department of Transportation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Safety of construction and inspection workers and parkway users relative to the proposed scaffolding in a location frequented by illegally operating commercial vehicles
terminatedby: Implementation of adequate protective design measures, enforcement of the commercial vehicle prohibition, or withdrawal from the assignment
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's recognition that commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway could strike workers at the proposed scaffolding location
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.746184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Unverified Concern — Scaffolding Hazard Not Yet Formally Reported
type: UnverifiedConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A formed the concern through the point at which it is formally communicated to the supervisor or client
affectedparties: Construction workers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: OPQ Construction
affectedparties: State Department of Transportation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
stateclass: Unverified Concern State
subject: Engineer A's concern about commercial vehicle hazard to scaffolding workers, which is based on personal observation but has not yet been formally communicated to the supervisor, client, or enforcement authorities
terminatedby: Formal communication of the concern to the supervisor, client, or relevant authorities
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's personal observation of illegal commercial vehicle use combined with the scaffolding design assignment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.746355
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Graduated Danger Calibration — Present Case vs BER 00-5
type: GraduatedEscalationObligationCalibratedtoDangerSeverityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the commercial vehicle hazard through implementation of corrective measures prior to scaffolding design
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Inspection and construction employees
affectedparties: Law enforcement
affectedparties: OPQ Construction supervisor
affectedparties: State DOT officials
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
stateclass: Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
subject: Engineer A's obligation in the present parkway ramp inspection case, calibrated against the more severe BER 00-5 bridge case
terminatedby: Appropriate corrective action implemented prior to design and assembly of inspection scaffolding
textreferences: In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction
textreferences: the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
triggeringevent: Engineer A's identification that the danger in the present case is real but not as imminent or widespread as the bridge collapse scenario, requiring a proportionate rather than full-bore escalation response
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.752224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation — BER 00-5 Bridge
type: Multi-AuthorityEscalationObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's observation of traffic flowing across the reopened bridge through the period in which appropriate authorities could have been contacted
affectedparties: County Commission
affectedparties: County prosecutors
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: State and federal transportation officials
affectedparties: State engineering licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
stateclass: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's professional obligation following the unauthorized reopening of the condemned bridge
terminatedby: Would be terminated by adequate corrective action by responsible authorities
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
triggeringevent: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing and this resulted in significant movement of the bridge, with log trucks and tankers crossing regularly
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.750929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk — BER 07-10 Barn
type: Non-ImminentStructuralCollapseRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's assessment of the structural concern through adequate corrective action
affectedparties: County/state building officials
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones (new owner)
affectedparties: Occupants of barn
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
stateclass: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
subject: Barn structure's risk of collapse under severe snow loads following Jones's removal of structural columns and footings
terminatedby: Would be terminated by structural remediation or adequate inspection by building officials
textreferences: Engineer A was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional assessment that removal of columns and footings created risk of collapse under severe snow loads
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.751996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

OPQ Construction Supervisor Commercial Vehicle Hazard Response Obligation
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The OPQ Construction supervisor directs Engineer A's scaffolding design work and is the primary recipient of Engineer A's safety hazard notification regarding commercial vehicle traffic on the parkway.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: OPQ Construction Supervisor
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon receiving Engineer A's notification of the commercial vehicle hazard on the parkway, the OPQ Construction supervisor is obligated to take appropriate action to address the identified safety risk — including directing design modifications, notifying the state DOT, or requesting enforcement of the commercial vehicle prohibition — and to refrain from directing Engineer A to finalize a scaffolding design that does not account for the foreseeable hazard.
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer A's notification of the commercial vehicle hazard
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.756541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Parkway Restricted-Use Enforcement Gap
type: Restricted-UseInfrastructureEnforcementGapState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — persists from the time commercial vehicle violations were first observed, through the scaffolding design assignment, until enforcement is activated or design parameters are revised
affectedparties: Construction and inspection workers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public using the parkway
affectedparties: OPQ Construction
affectedparties: State Department of Transportation
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:00.425300+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
stateclass: Restricted-Use Infrastructure Enforcement Gap State
subject: The parkway's legal noncommercial-only restriction versus observed actual use by commercial vehicles
terminatedby: Effective enforcement of the commercial vehicle prohibition, or revision of design parameters to account for actual observed conditions
textreferences: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's repeated personal observation of commercial vehicles illegally using the noncommercial parkway
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.746012
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Post-Sale Structural Safety Concern — BER 07-10 Barn
type: Post-SaleOriginalDesignerContinuingSafetyObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A learning of the extension and structural modifications through the period of monitoring and potential escalation
affectedparties: County/state building officials
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Jones (new owner)
affectedparties: Town supervisor
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
stateclass: Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's continuing safety obligation regarding the barn after sale to Jones and Jones's structural modifications
terminatedby: Would be terminated by adequate corrective action by town supervisor or county/state building officials
textreferences: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
textreferences: Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
textreferences: Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof
triggeringevent: Engineer A learned that Jones had removed portions of columns and footings supporting the roof as part of a barn extension, raising concern about collapse under severe snow loads
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.751653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Pre-Design Worksite Hazard Corrective Action Required — Present Case
type: WorksiteHazardRequiringPre-DesignCorrectiveActionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of the commercial vehicle hazard through implementation of corrective measures
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Inspection and construction employees
affectedparties: Law enforcement
affectedparties: OPQ Construction supervisor
affectedparties: State DOT officials
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
stateclass: Worksite Hazard Requiring Pre-Design Corrective Action State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to secure corrective action regarding illegal commercial vehicle traffic before proceeding with scaffolding design and assembly for parkway ramp inspection
terminatedby: Implementation of corrective measures (heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, design accommodation, or other protective method) prior to scaffolding design and assembly
textreferences: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
textreferences: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
triggeringevent: Engineer A's observation of illegal commercial vehicles using the restricted parkway, creating foreseeable safety risk to inspection and construction employees during planned ramp work
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.752405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Hazard
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction Workers Public Safety Stakeholder
appliedto: OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
appliedto: Passing Public Parkway Safety Stakeholder
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must proactively communicate to his supervisor the commercial vehicle hazard he has observed during his personal commute on the parkway, without waiting for a formal request or for an incident to occur, because the hazard is directly material to the safety of the scaffolding he has been assigned to design
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, proactive risk disclosure requires Engineer A to bring the commercial vehicle observation to his supervisor's attention immediately, before finalizing the scaffolding design, and to document that notification in writing
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
tensionresolution: Proactive risk disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to act on his personal observation even though it was not made in the course of formal professional investigation, because the observation is directly material to the assigned design task
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.753622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Safety Closure Enforcement Failure — BER 00-5 Barricades
type: SafetyClosureEnforcementFailureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery on Monday that barricades had been dumped in the river through installation of more permanent barricades
affectedparties: County Commission
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Local residents
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river, and the 'bridge closed' sign was found beyond the trees by the roadway
stateclass: Safety Closure Enforcement Failure State
subject: Removal and destruction of barricades and signs erected by Engineer A to close the condemned bridge
terminatedby: More permanent barricades and signs were installed
textreferences: More permanent barricades and signs were installed
textreferences: On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river, and the 'bridge closed' sign was found beyond the trees by the roadway
triggeringevent: Barricades found dumped in the river and 'bridge closed' sign found beyond the trees by the roadway on the Monday following Friday closure
urgencylevel: critical
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.752582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice — BER 00-5
type: UnlicensedInspectorPerformingEngineeringEvaluationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the public works director's direction to the retired inspector through the reopening decision based on that evaluation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public works director
affectedparties: Retired bridge inspector
affectedparties: State engineering licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:17:34.641894+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
stateclass: Unlicensed Inspector Performing Engineering Evaluation State
subject: Retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) performing structural evaluation and recommending crutch pile solution
terminatedby: Not formally terminated — the evaluation was acted upon without engineering review
textreferences: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
textreferences: a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
triggeringevent: Non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector who was not an engineer to examine the bridge
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.750733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification
type: CrutchPileAdequacyCollaborativeVerificationandReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector to implement a crutch pile solution without follow-up inspection; Engineer A observed significant bridge movement from traffic and was required to verify the adequacy of the remediation collaboratively with the consulting firm.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
obligationclass: Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification and Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to work with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the original inspection report to determine whether the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution would be structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to his supervisor.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor
temporalscope: Upon observing that the crutch pile solution had been implemented without follow-up inspection and that traffic was causing significant bridge movement
textreferences: Engineer A should have also worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch piles with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.761460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Incidental Commute Commercial Vehicle Observation Reporting Obligation
type: IncidentalCommuteObservationSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has personally observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the noncommercial parkway during his commute to and from work, and is currently designing scaffolding for a cloverleaf ramp on that same parkway with limited height and width clearance.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Commute Observation
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Incidental Commute Observation Safety Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to report to his supervisor at OPQ Construction his personal observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway — made during his daily commute — because those observations create a foreseeable safety risk to construction workers and the public at the scaffolding site he is designing, and to document that notification in writing.
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
temporalscope: Upon recognizing the connection between the observed illegal traffic and the foreseeable safety risk to the scaffolding worksite, and before finalizing the scaffolding design
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.755268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Incidental Commute Observation Safety Reporting Present Case
type: IncidentalCommuteObservationSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A observed during his personal commute that commercial vehicles were illegally using the parkway where he was designing scaffolding for OPQ Construction, creating a foreseeable safety hazard to construction workers and the public.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Commute Observation
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Incidental Commute Observation Safety Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to report to his supervisor at OPQ Construction the safety hazard he personally observed during his commute — specifically, that commercial vehicles were illegally operating on the noncommercial parkway where scaffolding was to be installed — so that the supervisor could take appropriate action to address the hazard before scaffolding design was finalized.
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
temporalscope: Upon observing the illegal commercial vehicle traffic during his commute, before finalizing the scaffolding design
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.764213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Obligation
type: ScaffoldingDesignCommercialVehicleClearanceSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is designing inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance, and has personally observed commercial vehicles illegally operating on the parkway, creating a foreseeable collision risk with the scaffolding.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Construction Safety Awareness Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Design
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to design the parkway cloverleaf ramp scaffolding with sufficient clearance, setback, or protective features to account for the foreseeable risk that commercial vehicles — though prohibited — may illegally traverse the parkway and endanger construction workers and the public, or to formally recommend alternative designs that mitigate this risk to his supervisor.
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
temporalscope: During the scaffolding design phase, before plans are finalized and submitted
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.755413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Construction Safety Awareness Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Design
type: ConstructionSafetyAwarenessinStructuralDesign
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction Workers Public Safety Stakeholder
appliedto: Scaffolding design for parkway cloverleaf ramp
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, in designing scaffolding for a parkway ramp with limited height and width clearance, must account for the foreseeable risk that illegally operating commercial vehicles — observed during his personal commute — could strike the scaffolding and endanger workers and the public
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, construction safety awareness requires Engineer A to incorporate the commercial vehicle strike risk into his scaffolding design parameters, including consideration of clearance, impact barriers, and setback from the travel lane
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Construction Safety Awareness in Structural Design
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
tensionresolution: Construction safety awareness obligation requires Engineer A to expand the design scope beyond the assigned parameters to address the foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.753440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A DOT Law Enforcement Notification Through Supervisor Present Case
type: DOTandLawEnforcementNotificationThroughAppropriateResponsiblePartyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Client Relationship with OPQ Construction and State DOT
casecontext: Engineer A identified that illegal commercial vehicle traffic on the parkway created a foreseeable safety hazard to construction workers and the public, requiring DOT and law enforcement involvement to implement corrective measures such as heightened enforcement or traffic closure.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Present Case Commercial Vehicle Hazard
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: DOT and Law Enforcement Notification Through Appropriate Responsible Party Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that state DOT officials and law enforcement were notified of the commercial vehicle hazard — either through his supervisor or another responsible party at OPQ Construction — before scaffolding design was finalized and construction commenced, recognizing that direct notification by Engineer A was not the primary required channel but that the notification must occur through appropriate institutional channels.
sourcetext: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction so that appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
temporalscope: Prior to finalization of scaffolding design and commencement of construction
textreferences: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction so that appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.763585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Construction Scaffolding Hazard Resolution Present Case
type: Pre-ConstructionScaffoldingDesignSafetyHazardResolutionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Pre-Design Worksite Hazard Corrective Action Required — Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A was directed to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a parkway ramp where illegal commercial vehicle traffic created a foreseeable safety hazard to workers and the public.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Present Case Scaffolding
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pre-Construction Scaffolding Design Safety Hazard Resolution Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ensure that appropriate corrective action addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — such as heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, or design accommodation — was considered and implemented before finalizing the scaffolding design and commencing construction, so that construction workers and the public were not exposed to the foreseeable preventable hazard.
sourcetext: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
temporalscope: Before finalizing scaffolding design and before construction commences
textreferences: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
textreferences: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.763730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Scaffolding Alternative Design Presentation Supervisor
type: ScaffoldingDesignAlternativePresentationforTrafficHazardMitigationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is designing scaffolding for a parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance, and has identified a foreseeable risk from commercial vehicles illegally operating on the restricted parkway.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Hazard Mitigation
derived from principle: Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Present Case Scaffolding
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Scaffolding Design Alternative Presentation for Traffic Hazard Mitigation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to identify and present to his supervisor alternative scaffolding configurations — such as designs with greater setback from the travel lane, protective barriers, or reduced construction footprint — that would reduce or eliminate the foreseeable risk from illegally operating commercial vehicles, before finalizing a scaffolding design that does not adequately account for this hazard.
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
temporalscope: During the design phase, before plans are finalized and submitted to the supervisor or state DOT
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.755890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Present Case
type: ScaffoldingDesignCommercialVehicleClearanceSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Parkway Restricted-Use Enforcement Gap
casecontext: Engineer A was directed to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance, and had personally observed that commercial vehicles were illegally using the parkway, creating a foreseeable collision hazard for construction workers.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Construction Safety Awareness Present Case Commercial Vehicle Hazard
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to account in the scaffolding design for the foreseeable risk that commercial vehicles — prohibited on the parkway but observed to be illegally traversing it — might nonetheless pass through the worksite, and to design the scaffolding with sufficient clearance, setback, or protective features, or to formally recommend design alternatives that mitigate the risk.
sourcetext: a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
temporalscope: During the scaffolding design phase, before design finalization and construction commencement
textreferences: a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
textreferences: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.765334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation Present Case
type: SupervisorNon-ResponseScaffoldingSafetyExternalEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Unverified Concern — Scaffolding Hazard Not Yet Formally Reported
casecontext: Engineer A identified a foreseeable safety hazard from illegal commercial vehicle traffic on the parkway and was required to escalate beyond his supervisor if the supervisor failed to take corrective action before scaffolding design was finalized.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, if his supervisor at OPQ Construction declined to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, to refuse to finalize the scaffolding design without adequate safety measures and, if necessary, to escalate the safety concern to appropriate external authorities including the state DOT client and relevant regulatory bodies.
sourcetext: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction
temporalscope: If and when the supervisor declines to address the identified hazard after notification
textreferences: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction
textreferences: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.765637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Written Supervisor Notification Commercial Vehicle Hazard
type: IllegalTrafficHazardSupervisorNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the noncommercial parkway during his personal commute, and is concerned that these vehicles could endanger construction workers and others if they pass the proposed scaffolding on the cloverleaf ramp.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Written Documentation Requirement Invoked By Engineer A Safety Notification
derived from principle: Written Documentation Requirement Present Case Scaffolding Safety
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to promptly notify his supervisor at OPQ Construction in writing of his personal observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway, the foreseeable safety risk those vehicles pose to construction workers and the public at the scaffolding site, and his professional judgment that the scaffolding design must account for this hazard.
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
temporalscope: Promptly upon recognizing the safety risk, and before finalizing the scaffolding design
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.755575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Present Case OPQ Construction
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Safety hazard notification to supervisor
appliedto: Scaffolding design assignment for OPQ Construction
balancingwith: Proactive Risk Disclosure
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must execute the scaffolding design assignment diligently for OPQ Construction while retaining the professional authority and obligation to flag the commercial vehicle safety hazard before proceeding with design and assembly
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to proceed with the scaffolding design assignment while simultaneously discharging the professional obligation to notify the supervisor of the identified safety hazard
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation is fulfilled by proceeding with the assignment while proactively notifying the supervisor of the safety hazard, not by proceeding without notification
textreferences: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others)
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.762731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Non-Subordination Public Safety BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override
type: Non-SubordinationofPublicSafetyObligationtoPoliticalorBudgetaryBargaining
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Crutch pile solution without engineering review
appliedto: Non-engineer override of bridge safety determination
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The non-engineer public works director's decision to have a retired bridge inspector (not a licensed engineer) examine the bridge and implement a crutch pile solution without proper engineering review represented an improper subordination of public safety to political convenience that Engineer A was obligated to challenge
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-engineer public works director's override of the engineering safety determination for political convenience represented an impermissible subordination of public safety standards that Engineer A was obligated to challenge through multi-authority escalation
invokedby: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
invokedby: Non-Engineer Public Works Director BER 00-5
principleclass: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
sourcetext: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken.
tensionresolution: Engineer A's obligation to challenge the non-engineer override required immediate multi-authority escalation to restore proper engineering oversight of the bridge safety decision
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken.
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing and this resulted in significant movement of the bridge. Log trucks and tankers crossed it on a regular basis, while school buses went around it.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.762580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Hazard Mitigation
type: ProactiveDesignAlternativesPresentationforPublicSafety
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction Workers Public Safety Stakeholder
appliedto: OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
appliedto: State DOT Infrastructure Repair Client
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A should identify and present to his supervisor alternative scaffolding configurations — such as designs with greater setback from the travel lane, impact barriers, or reduced footprint — that mitigate the commercial vehicle strike risk, so that the supervisor and DOT client can make an informed decision about the appropriate design approach
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, proactive design alternatives presentation requires Engineer A to expand the design conversation beyond the assigned approach to include alternatives that better protect workers and the public from the commercial vehicle hazard
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation for Public Safety
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
tensionresolution: Proactive design alternatives presentation obligation requires Engineer A to go beyond the assigned design parameters to present safety-enhancing alternatives, consistent with his public welfare obligation
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.754796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Proportional Escalation Obligation BER 00-5 Full-Bore Campaign
type: ProportionalEscalationObligationCalibratedtoImminenceandBreadthofRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Bridge with rotten pilings
appliedto: Multi-authority escalation campaign
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER 00-5 bridge collapse risk — imminent, widespread, and involving a 280-foot bridge 30 feet above a stream with rotten pilings — required a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign to state/federal transportation officials, licensing board, county commissioners, and other authorities
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The imminence and breadth of the bridge collapse risk required the most expansive form of escalation, contacting every authority with jurisdiction over the matter
invokedby: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
principleclass: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
sourcetext: the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation
tensionresolution: The imminent and widespread nature of the risk required full-bore escalation overriding any deference to employer or political authority
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities
textreferences: the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.760263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Proportional Escalation Obligation Present Case vs BER 00-5
type: ProportionalEscalationObligationCalibratedtoImminenceandBreadthofRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Commercial vehicle hazard to construction workers on parkway ramps
appliedto: Scaffolding design safety
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The present case's commercial vehicle hazard to scaffolding workers, while significant, is less imminent and widespread than the BER 00-5 bridge collapse risk, requiring immediate supervisor notification and probable DOT/law enforcement notification rather than a full multi-authority campaign
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The proportionality principle requires Engineer A to calibrate escalation to the limited (though real) nature of the danger, beginning with immediate supervisor notification and proceeding to DOT and law enforcement only as needed
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
sourcetext: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
tensionresolution: The limited nature of the danger permits a measured escalation response beginning with supervisor notification rather than requiring the full-bore multi-authority campaign appropriate for imminent widespread risks
textreferences: It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others)
textreferences: the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.760104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5
type: PublicEmployeeEngineerHeightenedPublicSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Bridge safety obligation as local government engineer
appliedto: Multi-authority escalation campaign
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A as a local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the bridge bore a heightened obligation — beyond that of a private consulting engineer — to pursue the bridge safety concern through all available institutional channels
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's public employment role created both a professional engineering duty and a public trust duty that reinforced each other, requiring the most expansive escalation response
invokedby: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
principleclass: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
sourcetext: in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue
tensionresolution: The combination of public employment role and imminent widespread risk required the most expansive escalation response available
textreferences: in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.762421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked BER 00-5 Bridge Closure
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Bridge with rotten pilings 30 feet above stream
appliedto: Public safety from bridge collapse
balancingwith: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
balancingwith: Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's immediate closure of the critically unsafe bridge with rotten pilings, maintenance of the closure against public pressure, and pursuit of multi-authority escalation when the closure was compromised by non-engineer decisions
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare in BER 00-5 required immediate closure, resistance to public pressure, and multi-authority escalation when non-engineers overrode engineering safety determinations
invokedby: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation was paramount and required full-bore multi-authority escalation given the imminence and breadth of the bridge collapse risk
textreferences: Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
textreferences: the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics'
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.759902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction Workers Public Safety Stakeholder
appliedto: Passing Public Parkway Safety Stakeholder
appliedto: Scaffolding design for parkway cloverleaf ramp
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A recognizes that the scaffolding design for the parkway cloverleaf ramp poses a foreseeable risk to construction workers and passing members of the public if illegally operating commercial vehicles strike the scaffolding, and that this risk must be addressed before the design is finalized
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to notify his supervisor of the commercial vehicle hazard, incorporate safety measures into the design, and refuse to finalize the design without adequate mitigation if the hazard is not addressed
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides the faithful agent obligation to execute the assigned design without modification, requiring Engineer A to flag the hazard and seek design modifications
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.753282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked In Present Case Scaffolding Safety
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Commercial vehicle traffic hazard to workers
appliedto: Construction scaffolding design for parkway cloverleaf ramp
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to protect construction workers and passing public from commercial vehicle hazards while performing scaffolding work on parkway ramps represents the paramount public welfare obligation in the present case
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare in this context encompasses both the construction workers directly exposed to commercial vehicle hazards and the passing public who may be endangered by inadequate scaffolding design or unsafe working conditions
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation requires Engineer A to notify supervisor and probable DOT/law enforcement officials even though this may disrupt the employer's project schedule
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
textreferences: the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.759740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Written Documentation Requirement BER 07-10 Barn Safety
type: WrittenDocumentationRequirementforSafetyNotification
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural modification safety notification
appliedto: Town supervisor and new owner notification
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor about the barn structural risk was insufficient; written notification to both the town supervisor and the new owner Jones was required to create an unambiguous and actionable record
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Written documentation was required to create a clear record of Engineer A's safety concern, enable follow-up with deadlines, and preserve the ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation
invokedby: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn
principleclass: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
sourcetext: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation
tensionresolution: Written documentation was required even in the measured-response context of BER 07-10 to ensure the safety concern was unambiguously communicated and actionable
textreferences: Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.760590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Written Documentation Requirement Invoked By Engineer A Safety Notification
type: WrittenDocumentationRequirementforSafetyNotification
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must document in writing his notification to his supervisor regarding the commercial vehicle hazard on the parkway, creating a clear and unambiguous record that the concern was raised, the basis for it, and the supervisor's response
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, written documentation is required to ensure that Engineer A's safety concern cannot be minimized or denied, and to create a basis for further escalation if the supervisor fails to act
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
tensionresolution: Written documentation obligation is not in conflict with employer loyalty but reinforces it by creating a clear record of the safety concern and the employer's response
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.753764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Construction Safety Awareness Present Case Commercial Vehicle Hazard
type: ConstructionSafetyAwarenessinStructuralDesign
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Commercial vehicle traffic hazard to construction workers
appliedto: Scaffolding design for parkway cloverleaf ramp
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's recognition that commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway create a safety hazard for construction and inspection employees working on the scaffolding represents the application of construction safety awareness in the scaffolding design context
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Construction safety awareness requires Engineer A to identify and address the foreseeable hazard of commercial vehicles passing construction workers during scaffolding assembly and use, even though this hazard arises from traffic conditions rather than the structural design itself
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Construction Safety Awareness in Structural Design
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned about the safety of the employees who will be performing the inspection and construction work on the ramps due to commercial vehicles that illegally use the parkway
tensionresolution: Construction safety awareness requires proactive notification and design consideration to protect workers from foreseeable traffic hazards
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned about the safety of the employees who will be performing the inspection and construction work on the ramps due to commercial vehicles that illegally use the parkway
textreferences: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
textreferences: the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.760893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Hazard
type: ContextualCalibrationofPublicSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
appliedto: State DOT Infrastructure Repair Client
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must calibrate the scope and urgency of his safety reporting to the nature of his observation: personal observation of illegal commercial vehicles without confirmed strike incidents generates an obligation to notify his supervisor immediately and in writing, and to assess whether the severity of potential harm also requires notification of the DOT client or regulatory authorities
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, contextual calibration requires Engineer A to assess whether his personal observation — without confirmed incidents — generates an obligation beyond supervisor notification, calibrated to the severity of potential harm to workers and the public
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
tensionresolution: Contextual calibration requires Engineer A to escalate beyond his supervisor if the hazard is not addressed, because the potential harm is severe even though no incidents have been confirmed
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.754952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County State Building Officials
type: Deadline-ConditionedCounty-StateBuildingOfficialEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk — BER 07-10 Barn
casecontext: After Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor produced no action, the Board found that Engineer A should have set a specific deadline and notified the supervisor that failure to act within that period would require escalation to county or state building officials.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Persistent Escalation BER 07-10 Town Supervisor Follow-Up
derived from principle: Proportional Escalation Obligation BER 07-10 Measured Response
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 07-10)
obligationclass: Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER 07-10 was obligated, after setting a reasonable deadline for corrective action by the town supervisor, to escalate the barn structural safety concern to county or state building officials if the town supervisor failed to take adequate steps within that specified period.
sourcetext: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate
temporalscope: Upon expiration of the reasonable deadline set in the written follow-up to the town supervisor
textreferences: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.765058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Persistent Escalation BER 07-10 Town Supervisor Follow-Up
type: PersistentEscalationObligationWhenInitialSafetyReportIsUnacknowledged
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Escalation to county/state building officials
appliedto: Town supervisor follow-up after verbal notification produced no action
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
balancingwith: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor produced no action, Engineer A was required to follow up in writing, set a deadline for response, and escalate to county or state building officials if the deadline passed without adequate action
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The town supervisor's failure to act after verbal notification did not discharge Engineer A's obligation; persistent written follow-up with deadlines and escalation to higher authorities was required
invokedby: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn
principleclass: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
sourcetext: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate
tensionresolution: Persistent escalation through written follow-up and deadline-setting was required to ensure the safety concern was adequately addressed
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter, but no action was taken
textreferences: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.762120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Proactive Risk Disclosure Present Case Commercial Vehicle Hazard
type: ProactiveRiskDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Commercial vehicle hazard notification
appliedto: Pre-design safety disclosure
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must proactively communicate the commercial vehicle hazard to the OPQ Construction supervisor and probable DOT/law enforcement officials before proceeding with scaffolding design and assembly, without waiting for harm to materialize
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Proactive risk disclosure requires Engineer A to raise the commercial vehicle hazard before scaffolding design and assembly begins, so that corrective measures can be implemented prior to worker exposure
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Proactive Risk Disclosure
sourcetext: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
tensionresolution: Proactive disclosure is required before work begins so that appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the scaffolding
textreferences: appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.761048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Proportional Escalation Obligation BER 07-10 Measured Response
type: ProportionalEscalationObligationCalibratedtoImminenceandBreadthofRisk
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Barn structural modification risk
appliedto: Written notification to owner and town supervisor
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
balancingwith: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The BER 07-10 barn structural risk — significant but not imminent, affecting one property — required a measured escalation: written notification to owner and supervisor, followed by deadline-setting and escalation to county/state building officials only if no action was taken
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-imminent and limited scope of the barn structural risk permitted a graduated response with deadlines rather than immediate multi-authority escalation
invokedby: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn
principleclass: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
sourcetext: Engineer A had fulfilled his ethical obligation by notifying the town supervisor, but that Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
tensionresolution: The measured nature of the risk permitted a graduated escalation with deadlines before escalating to county/state building officials
textreferences: Engineer A had fulfilled his ethical obligation by notifying the town supervisor, but that Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
textreferences: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.760439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation
type: Five-TonLimitStrictEnforcementSupervisorEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation — BER 00-5 Bridge
casecontext: After the bridge was reopened with a five-ton limit following the crutch pile installation, Engineer A observed that log trucks and tankers were regularly crossing the bridge in violation of the limit, causing significant bridge movement.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Non-Subordination Public Safety BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
obligationclass: Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to immediately press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton weight limit on the bridge reopened under the crutch pile solution, and if that escalation was ineffective, to escalate further to state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
temporalscope: Upon observing that the five-ton limit was being violated by log trucks and tankers on a regular basis
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.765194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern External Reporting Threshold Assessment
type: ReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Graduated Escalation Scaffolding Commercial Vehicle Hazard Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A has a good faith belief, based on personal observation and professional judgment, that illegal commercial vehicle traffic on the parkway creates a material safety risk to construction workers and the public at the scaffolding site; this belief must be assessed against the threshold for external reporting under NSPE Code II.1.a.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Observation
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to assess whether his personal observations of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway — combined with his professional judgment about the resulting scaffolding safety risk — rise to the threshold requiring external reporting to the state DOT or other regulatory authorities, and to take such reporting steps if the supervisor fails to act and the risk to construction workers and the public remains unaddressed.
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
temporalscope: After notifying the supervisor and assessing the supervisor's response; conditionally triggered if the supervisor fails to address the hazard
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.756394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Assignment
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: OPQ Construction DOT Inspection Repair Employer
appliedto: OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
balancingwith: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A is obligated to execute the scaffolding design assignment directed by his supervisor diligently and within the scope of the engagement, while simultaneously retaining the professional authority and obligation to flag the commercial vehicle hazard and refuse to finalize the design without adequate safety measures
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, faithful agency requires Engineer A to proceed with the design assignment while simultaneously raising the commercial vehicle hazard, and to defer to the supervisor's direction on design choices that do not compromise public safety
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
tensionresolution: Faithful agent obligation is subordinate to public welfare paramount when the assigned design approach creates an unmitigated foreseeable risk to workers and the public
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.754255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Observation
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernThresholdforExternalReporting
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction Workers Public Safety Stakeholder
appliedto: Passing Public Parkway Safety Stakeholder
appliedto: State DOT Infrastructure Repair Client
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's personal observation of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway, combined with his professional judgment that these vehicles could strike the scaffolding and endanger workers and the public, constitutes a good faith safety concern sufficient to trigger an obligation to report to appropriate authorities if his supervisor fails to act
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the good faith safety concern threshold is met by Engineer A's personal observation and professional judgment, even without confirmed strike incidents, and triggers an obligation to escalate to the DOT or other authorities if the supervisor fails to address the hazard
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
tensionresolution: Good faith safety concern threshold obligation requires Engineer A to escalate beyond his supervisor if the hazard is not addressed, because the potential harm to workers and the public is severe and foreseeable
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.754609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Commute Observation
type: IncidentalObservationDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction Workers Public Safety Stakeholder
appliedto: OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's personal observation of illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway during his commute — made outside the scope of his contracted engineering work — constitutes an incidental observation that he is obligated to disclose to his supervisor because it is directly material to the safety of the scaffolding design he has been assigned
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the incidental observation disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to treat his personal commute observation as professionally relevant and to disclose it to his supervisor, even though the observation was not made in the course of formal professional investigation
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
tensionresolution: The incidental observation disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to act on knowledge gained outside his contracted scope because the observation is directly material to the assigned design task and the safety of workers and the public
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.754049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Written Documentation Requirement Present Case Scaffolding Safety
type: WrittenDocumentationRequirementforSafetyNotification
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Commercial vehicle hazard notification to OPQ Construction supervisor
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's notification to the OPQ Construction supervisor about commercial vehicle hazards should be in writing if necessary to create an unambiguous and actionable record of the safety concern
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Written documentation of the safety notification ensures the concern cannot be ignored or denied and preserves Engineer A's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
tensionresolution: Written documentation is required when verbal notification alone may be insufficient to ensure the safety concern is acted upon
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.760730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination
type: RetiredInspectorUnlicensedEngineeringPracticeDeterminationandReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Bridge Collapse
defeasible under: Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice — BER 00-5
casecontext: A non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector who was not a licensed engineer to examine the structurally compromised bridge, and the inspector's assessment was used to justify reopening the bridge with a five-ton limit and crutch piles, without follow-up inspection.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Unlicensed Practice Challenge Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Inspector
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
obligationclass: Retired Inspector Unlicensed Engineering Practice Determination and Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to determine whether the activities of the retired bridge inspector — who was not a licensed engineer but was directed to examine the bridge and whose assessment was used to justify the crutch pile solution — constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering under applicable state law, and if so, to report those activities to the state engineering licensure board.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
temporalscope: Upon learning that the retired bridge inspector had been directed to examine the bridge and that his assessment had been used to make safety-critical infrastructure decisions
textreferences: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.764376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn
type: PriorDesignEngineerwithPost-SaleSafetyAwareness
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Persistent Escalation BER 07-10 Town Supervisor Follow-Up
adheres to principle: Proportional Escalation Obligation BER 07-10 Measured Response
adheres to principle: Third-Party Direct Notification BER 07-10 Jones Barn Owner
adheres to principle: Written Documentation Requirement BER 07-10 Barn Safety
has obligation: Engineer A BER 07-10 Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County State Building Officials
has obligation: Engineer A BER 07-10 New Owner Priority Notification Jones Barn
has obligation: Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Notification Town Supervisor Barn Safety
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural design', 'property_status': 'Former owner'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A designed and built a barn on his property, later sold it, and subsequently learned that the new owner had made structural modifications that created a collapse risk under snow loads, obligating Engineer A to notify the new owner and town supervisor in writing and escalate to county or state building officials if no corrective action was taken.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'notifies', 'target': 'Jones New Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'notifies', 'target': 'Town Supervisor'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Prior Design Engineer with Post-Sale Safety Awareness
sourcetext: Engineer A designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: Engineer A designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
textreferences: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
textreferences: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter, but no action was taken
textreferences: Four years later, Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.748678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Supervisor Refusal Scaffolding Safety Escalation
type: SupervisorNon-ResponseScaffoldingSafetyExternalEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Writing Present Case
prevails over: Engineer A Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Writing Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A has identified a foreseeable safety risk from illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway adjacent to the proposed scaffolding site; if his supervisor fails to act on this notification, Engineer A must escalate rather than acquiesce in an unsafe design.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: If Engineer A's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, Engineer A is obligated to refuse to finalize the scaffolding design without adequate safety measures and, if necessary, to escalate the safety concern to the state DOT client and appropriate regulatory authorities, recognizing that the supervisor's inaction does not extinguish Engineer A's paramount duty to protect construction workers and the public.
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
temporalscope: Conditionally triggered if and when the supervisor declines to address the identified hazard after receiving Engineer A's notification
textreferences: Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.756081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Persistent Escalation BER 00-5 Multi-Authority Campaign
type: PersistentEscalationObligationWhenInitialSafetyReportIsUnacknowledged
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Multi-authority escalation after non-engineer override of safety determination
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After the non-engineer public works director overrode Engineer A's bridge safety determination and the crutch pile solution was implemented without adequate engineering review, Engineer A was required to escalate to state/federal transportation officials, the licensing board, county commissioners, and other authorities
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-engineer public works director's override of the engineering safety determination did not discharge Engineer A's obligation; immediate multi-authority escalation was required given the imminence and breadth of the risk
invokedby: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
principleclass: Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
tensionresolution: The imminent and widespread nature of the bridge collapse risk required immediate multi-authority escalation rather than a measured graduated response
textreferences: By failing to take this action, Engineer A would be ignoring his basic professional and ethical obligations
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.762266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Challenge Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Inspector
type: UnlicensedPracticeProhibitionandChallengeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Non-engineer public works director directing engineering decisions
appliedto: Retired bridge inspector performing engineering assessment
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was directed to assess whether the retired bridge inspector's activities — examining the bridge and directing the crutch pile solution — constituted unlicensed engineering practice, and to report to the state licensing board if so
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The retired bridge inspector's examination of the bridge and direction of the structural solution constituted acts of engineering practice requiring a license, and Engineer A bore an obligation to assess and potentially report this unlicensed practice
invokedby: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
principleclass: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
tensionresolution: The obligation to report unlicensed practice to the licensing board prevailed over any deference to the non-engineer public works director's authority
textreferences: A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
textreferences: Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.761793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Contextual Calibration Public Safety Reporting Present Case vs Prior Cases
type: ContextualCalibrationofPublicSafetyReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Commercial vehicle hazard reporting obligation calibration
appliedto: Comparison with BER 00-5 and BER 07-10
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's analysis explicitly calibrates Engineer A's reporting obligation in the present case to the limited nature of the danger compared to BER 00-5, concluding that the present case requires immediate supervisor notification and probable DOT/law enforcement notification rather than a full multi-authority campaign
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The contextual calibration principle requires the Board to assess the nature, imminence, and breadth of the risk in the present case and determine the appropriate scope and urgency of the reporting obligation accordingly
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
tensionresolution: The limited but real nature of the danger in the present case calibrates the reporting obligation to immediate supervisor notification with probable DOT/law enforcement follow-up, not a full multi-authority campaign
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved
textreferences: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
textreferences: there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.763222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Resistance Bridge Closure
type: PublicPressureNon-SubordinationofBridgeClosureSafetyDeterminationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Bridge Collapse
defeasible under: Bridge Closure Public Pressure Override — BER 00-5
prevails over: Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Bridge Collapse
casecontext: After Engineer A ordered closure of the critically unsafe bridge, residents organized a rally and presented a 200-signature petition to the County Commission demanding reopening; Engineer A explained the extent of damages and replacement efforts, and the County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Resistance to Public Pressure BER 00-5 Bridge Petition
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
obligationclass: Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to maintain the bridge closure determination against the 200-signature petition, community rally, and political pressure for reopening, and to explain the technical basis for the closure to the County Commission, recognizing that yielding professional safety judgments to public sentiment when great dangers are present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility.
sourcetext: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation
temporalscope: During the period of public pressure following bridge closure and before bridge replacement was completed
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation
textreferences: The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.764612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 New Owner Priority Notification Jones Barn
type: NewOwnerPriorityNotificationBeforeTownSupervisorEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Notification Town Supervisor Barn Safety
defeasible under: Post-Sale Structural Safety Concern — BER 07-10 Barn
prevails over: Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Notification Town Supervisor Barn Safety
casecontext: Engineer A learned that Jones had removed structural columns and footings from the barn Engineer A had originally designed, creating a risk of collapse under severe snow loads; Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor but did not first notify Jones in writing.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Third-Party Direct Notification BER 07-10 Jones Barn Owner
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 07-10)
obligationclass: New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER 07-10 was obligated to notify Jones, the new barn owner, in writing of the perceived structural deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying the town supervisor, recognizing that Jones was the party most immediately affected by the risk and most capable of taking prompt protective action.
sourcetext: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
temporalscope: Upon learning of the structural modifications and before or contemporaneously with notifying the town supervisor
textreferences: Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.764907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Escalation Scaffolding Commercial Vehicle Hazard Present Case
type: GraduatedEscalationCalibratedtoRiskImminenceandEmploymentContextObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern External Reporting Threshold Assessment
defeasible under: Graduated Danger Calibration — Present Case vs BER 00-5
prevails over: Engineer A Precedent-Informed Calibration Present Case vs BER 00-5 vs BER 07-10
casecontext: Engineer A, employed by OPQ Construction to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp, personally observed during his commute that commercial vehicles were illegally using the parkway, creating a foreseeable safety hazard to construction workers and the public.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Proportional Escalation Obligation Present Case vs BER 00-5
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence and Employment Context Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to immediately notify his supervisor at OPQ Construction verbally and in writing of the safety hazards to construction employees and others from commercial vehicles illegally operating on the parkway, and to ensure that appropriate corrective action was considered and implemented before finalizing the scaffolding design, calibrating the escalation to the limited imminence and breadth of the danger rather than pursuing a full-bore multi-authority campaign.
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
temporalscope: Upon observation of the illegal commercial vehicle traffic and before finalizing the scaffolding design
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
textreferences: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.763427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Scaffolding Design Obligation
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Corrective Options Presentation Supervisor Present Case
prevails over: Engineer A Corrective Options Presentation Supervisor Present Case
casecontext: Engineer A is designing scaffolding for a parkway ramp with limited clearance and has identified a foreseeable risk from prohibited commercial vehicles, implicating his paramount duty to protect public welfare under NSPE Code I.1.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked In Present Case Scaffolding Safety
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:21:02.025927+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of construction workers and the passing public in designing the parkway scaffolding, ensuring that the design accounts for all foreseeable hazards — including the risk from illegally operating commercial vehicles — and does not subordinate public safety to schedule, cost, or supervisor direction.
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
temporalscope: Throughout the scaffolding design process
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
textreferences: Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.756229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Present Case Scaffolding
type: ProactiveDesignAlternativesPresentationforPublicSafety
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Scaffolding design alternatives for commercial vehicle hazard mitigation
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A and OPQ Construction should consider and present multiple alternative approaches to addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — including heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, or a design accommodating commercial vehicles — rather than proceeding with a single approach
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Multiple design and operational alternatives should be identified and presented to decision-makers so that the most appropriate protective measure can be selected
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
invokedby: OPQ Construction DOT Inspection Repair Employer
principleclass: Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation for Public Safety
sourcetext: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
tensionresolution: Presenting alternatives enables informed decision-making about the most appropriate protective measure for workers and the public
textreferences: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.761293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Resistance to Public Pressure BER 00-5 Bridge Petition
type: ResistancetoPublicPressureonSafetyDeterminations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: 200-signature petition and rally
appliedto: Bridge closure maintenance against public pressure
balancingwith: Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A maintained the bridge closure recommendation against a 200-signature petition and community rally, and the County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's explanation of the structural dangers
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineer's professional safety determination that the bridge was unsafe could not be overridden by popular sentiment, even when organized as a formal petition to the governing body
invokedby: County Commission BER 00-5
invokedby: Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
principleclass: Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
sourcetext: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission. Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
tensionresolution: The County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's technical explanation, demonstrating that professional safety determinations should prevail over public pressure
textreferences: A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
textreferences: For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.761633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Third-Party Direct Notification BER 07-10 Jones Barn Owner
type: Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Jones as new barn owner directly exposed to structural collapse risk
appliedto: Written notification obligation
balancingwith: Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
balancingwith: Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was required to notify Jones, the new barn owner, directly in writing of the structural safety concerns arising from the column and footing removal, in addition to notifying the town supervisor
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:26:05.014062+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Jones as the current occupant and owner of the structurally compromised barn was a directly affected third party who had a right to know of the structural risk independent of regulatory notification
invokedby: Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn
principleclass: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
sourcetext: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
tensionresolution: Direct notification to the affected property owner was required as a first step before or concurrent with regulatory notification, because Jones was the party most immediately exposed to the risk
textreferences: Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
textreferences: it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.761944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Notification Town Supervisor Barn Safety
type: Post-Verbal-NotificationWrittenStructuralSafetyConfirmationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 07-10 New Owner Priority Notification Jones Barn
defeasible under: Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Concern — BER 07-10
casecontext: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor about the structural risk to the barn Jones had modified, but no action was taken; the Board found that Engineer A should have followed up in writing and set a deadline for corrective action before escalating to higher authorities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Written Documentation Requirement BER 07-10 Barn Safety
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 07-10)
obligationclass: Post-Verbal-Notification Written Structural Safety Confirmation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER 07-10 was obligated to follow up his verbal notification to the town supervisor about the barn structural risk with written confirmation restating the concern, to make a written record of all communications with both the property owner and the town supervisor, and to continue monitoring the situation — escalating to county or state building officials if appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation
temporalscope: Following the verbal notification to the town supervisor that produced no action
textreferences: Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation
textreferences: If appropriate steps were not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should have again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.764763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Corrective Options Presentation Supervisor Present Case
type: EngineerACorrectiveOptionsPresentationSupervisorPresentCase
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Scaffolding Design Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer A Public Safety at Risk — Worker and Public Endangerment from Scaffolding Proximity to Illegal Traffic
casecontext: Engineer A identified a foreseeable safety hazard from illegally operating commercial vehicles on the parkway adjacent to the proposed scaffolding worksite and was required to present corrective options to his supervisor.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Present Case Scaffolding
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Corrective Action Options Identification and Presentation for Illegal Traffic Hazard Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to identify and present to his supervisor at OPQ Construction a range of corrective action options for addressing the commercial vehicle hazard — including heightened law enforcement, traffic closure of affected exits, design accommodation for commercial vehicles, or other protective measures — so that the supervisor could make an informed decision about which corrective measure to implement.
sourcetext: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
temporalscope: Contemporaneously with or immediately following notification of the safety hazard to the supervisor
textreferences: This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.763868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Writing Present Case
type: IllegalTrafficHazardSupervisorNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Supervisor Refusal Scaffolding Safety Escalation
defeasible under: Engineer A Observed Illegal Commercial Vehicle Use Creating Scaffolding Hazard
casecontext: Engineer A personally observed illegal commercial vehicle traffic on the restricted parkway where scaffolding was to be installed, creating a foreseeable safety hazard to construction workers and the public.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Written Documentation Requirement Present Case Scaffolding Safety
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to promptly notify his supervisor at OPQ Construction in writing of the commercial vehicle hazard he observed on the parkway, creating a documented record of the notification so that the supervisor could take appropriate action and so that Engineer A's professional obligation was clearly discharged.
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
temporalscope: Immediately upon observing the illegal commercial vehicle traffic, before finalizing the scaffolding design
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.765495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent-Informed Calibration Present Case vs BER 00-5 vs BER 07-10
type: Precedent-InformedProportionalSafetyResponseCalibrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Bridge Collapse
casecontext: The Board explicitly calibrated Engineer A's obligations in the present case against prior BER decisions, finding that the present danger was less imminent and widespread than BER 00-5 and that Engineer A's employment context as a private contractor (rather than a public employee with specific bridge responsibility) further distinguished the required response.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Contextual Calibration Public Safety Reporting Present Case vs Prior Cases
derived from principle: Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Hazard
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Precedent-Informed Proportional Safety Response Calibration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to calibrate his safety response to the present scaffolding/commercial vehicle hazard against the spectrum established by BER 00-5 (full-bore multi-authority campaign for imminent widespread bridge collapse) and BER 07-10 (measured multi-step escalation for non-imminent barn structural risk), recognizing that the present case's limited imminence and breadth placed it below the BER 00-5 threshold but still required prompt documented escalation through the supervisor and, if necessary, to DOT and law enforcement.
sourcetext: On several occasions, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma and each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved
temporalscope: Throughout the period of identifying, reporting, and addressing the safety hazard
textreferences: On several occasions, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma and each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved
textreferences: The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5
textreferences: the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.764034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
type: Non-AcquiescencetoUnsafeClientDirectives
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: OPQ Construction DOT Inspection Repair Employer
appliedto: OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
appliedto: State DOT Infrastructure Repair Client
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: If Engineer A's supervisor declines to address the commercial vehicle hazard after notification, Engineer A must refuse to finalize the scaffolding design without adequate safety measures, and must escalate the concern to higher authority within OPQ Construction or to the DOT client
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:19:45.677776+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, non-acquiescence to unsafe client directives requires Engineer A to refuse to finalize the scaffolding design if the commercial vehicle hazard is not addressed, even if his supervisor directs him to proceed
invokedby: Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
sourcetext: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
tensionresolution: Non-acquiescence obligation overrides the faithful agent obligation when the supervisor's direction would result in a design that Engineer A has determined places workers and the public at material risk
textreferences: Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding.
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.754413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
type: LocalGovernmentBridgeSafetyEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Non-Subordination Public Safety BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override
adheres to principle: Persistent Escalation BER 00-5 Multi-Authority Campaign
adheres to principle: Proportional Escalation Obligation BER 00-5 Full-Bore Campaign
adheres to principle: Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked BER 00-5 Bridge Closure
adheres to principle: Unlicensed Practice Challenge Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Inspector
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Bridge Collapse
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Resistance Bridge Closure
has obligation: Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Local government', 'specialty': 'Bridge/infrastructure engineering'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A was a local government engineer who identified a critically unsafe bridge, ordered its closure, faced public pressure to reopen it, and was obligated to escalate safety concerns to supervisors, state/federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities when a non-engineer public works director directed unlicensed inspection and unauthorized reopening of the bridge.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Local Government'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Consulting Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'County Commission'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State/Federal Transportation Officials'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Local Government Bridge Safety Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was an engineer with a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge
textreferences: Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon
textreferences: Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing and this resulted in significant movement of the bridge
textreferences: Engineer A was an engineer with a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.748527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Bridge Collapse
type: ImminentWidespreadBridgeCollapseFull-BoreMulti-AuthorityCampaignObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Resistance Bridge Closure
competes with: Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination
competes with: Engineer A Precedent-Informed Calibration Present Case vs BER 00-5 vs BER 07-10
defeasible under: Safety Closure Enforcement Failure — BER 00-5 Barricades
prevails over: Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation
casecontext: Engineer A was a local government engineer who identified a critically unsafe bridge with rotten pilings, ordered its closure, faced a 200-signature petition and community rally demanding reopening, and observed that a non-engineer public works director had directed a retired bridge inspector to implement an inadequate crutch pile solution without follow-up inspection, with log trucks and tankers regularly crossing the five-ton-limit bridge.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Persistent Escalation BER 00-5 Multi-Authority Campaign
derived from principle: Proportional Escalation Obligation BER 00-5 Full-Bore Campaign
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked BER 00-5 Bridge Closure
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:28:22.609051+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 00-5)
obligationclass: Imminent Widespread Bridge Collapse Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A in BER 00-5 was obligated to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign — contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities — upon identifying the imminent and widespread danger of bridge collapse from rotten pilings, and to maintain the bridge closure against public pressure and political demands for reopening.
sourcetext: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
temporalscope: Upon observation that the five-ton limit was being violated and that the crutch pile solution was inadequate, and throughout the period of public pressure to reopen
textreferences: By failing to take this action, Engineer A would be ignoring his basic professional and ethical obligations
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities
textreferences: Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.758617
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
type: ConstructionScaffoldingDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Construction Safety Awareness Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Design
adheres to principle: Construction Safety Awareness Present Case Commercial Vehicle Hazard
adheres to principle: Contextual Calibration Public Safety Reporting Present Case vs Prior Cases
adheres to principle: Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Hazard
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Assignment
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Present Case OPQ Construction
adheres to principle: Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Observation
adheres to principle: Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Commute Observation
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
adheres to principle: Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Hazard Mitigation
adheres to principle: Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Present Case Scaffolding
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Hazard
adheres to principle: Proactive Risk Disclosure Present Case Commercial Vehicle Hazard
adheres to principle: Proportional Escalation Obligation Present Case vs BER 00-5
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked In Present Case Scaffolding Safety
adheres to principle: Written Documentation Requirement Invoked By Engineer A Safety Notification
adheres to principle: Written Documentation Requirement Present Case Scaffolding Safety
has obligation: Engineer A Corrective Options Presentation Supervisor Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A DOT Law Enforcement Notification Through Supervisor Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern External Reporting Threshold Assessment
has obligation: Engineer A Graduated Escalation Scaffolding Commercial Vehicle Hazard Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Writing Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Incidental Commute Commercial Vehicle Observation Reporting Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Incidental Commute Observation Safety Reporting Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Supervisor Refusal Scaffolding Safety Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Pre-Construction Scaffolding Hazard Resolution Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Precedent-Informed Calibration Present Case vs BER 00-5 vs BER 07-10
has obligation: Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Scaffolding Design Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Scaffolding Alternative Design Presentation Supervisor
has obligation: Engineer A Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Obligation
has obligation: Engineer A Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation Present Case
has obligation: Engineer A Written Supervisor Notification Commercial Vehicle Hazard
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'OPQ Construction', 'specialty': 'Scaffolding design for infrastructure inspection and repair'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A is employed by OPQ Construction to design temporary inspection and construction scaffolding for highway ramp infrastructure repair, and has identified foreseeable safety hazards from illegal commercial vehicle traffic on the parkway and ramps, bearing obligations to immediately notify their supervisor and appropriate DOT and law enforcement officials.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 140
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 140
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T01:16:57.940142+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_project', 'target': 'State DOT Infrastructure Repair Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'OPQ Construction DOT Inspection Repair Employer'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'OPQ Construction Supervisor'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer
sourcetext: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by
textreferences: prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
textreferences: prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by
wasattributedto: Case 140 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T01:40:09.750090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 140 Extraction