NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 00-5
An illustration of how the Board has addressed this dilemma can be found in BER Case No. 00-5
The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 07-10
More recently, in BER Case No. 07-10, Engineer A designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
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
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 89-7
Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 90-5
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 92-6
Bridge Closure Public Pressure Override — BER 00-5
From the rally and petition presentation through the County Commission's decision not to reopen the bridge
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission
Public Pressure Overriding Engineering Safety Closure State
Engineer A's bridge closure decision and subsequent County Commission response
County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge (pressure resisted in this instance)
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
Rally held and petition with approximately 200 signatures presented to County Commission requesting bridge reopening
Bridge Deterioration Discovered (Event 4) + Bridge Closure Barricades Erected (Action 6) → Barricades Removed By Unknown Party (Event 6)
CausalLink_Bridge Closure Barricades Erec
CausalLink_Design Scaffolding Accommodati
CausalLink_Engineer A Accepts Design Assi
CausalLink_Escalate to DOT and Law Enforc
CausalLink_Non-Engineer Orders Crutch Pil
CausalLink_Obtain Bridge Replacement Auth
CausalLink_Reinstall Permanent Barricades
CausalLink_Supervisor Directs Scaffolding
Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Concern — BER 07-10
From issuance of the certificate of occupancy through Engineer A's notification to the town supervisor
The changes were approved by the town and the extension was built and a certificate of occupancy was issued
Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency State
Town's issuance of certificate of occupancy for the barn extension despite structural modifications that Engineer A assessed as potentially dangerous
Not terminated — town supervisor agreed to look into the matter but no action was taken
Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Constructability Review and Construction Safety Review Standard
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
Engineer A in determining whether additional safety review of the scaffolding design is warranted
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
Professional engineering societies and OSHA regulatory framework
Construction Safety Knowledge Standard for Structural and Civil Engineers
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
Engineer A in assessing the boundaries of professional responsibility for worker safety in the scaffolding design task
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
Construction Safety Awareness Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Design
Construction Workers Public Safety Stakeholder
Scaffolding design for parkway cloverleaf ramp
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
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
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
Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer
Construction Safety Awareness in Structural Design
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.
Construction safety awareness obligation requires Engineer A to expand the design scope beyond the assigned parameters to address the foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard
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.
From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
Construction Safety Awareness Present Case Commercial Vehicle Hazard
Commercial vehicle traffic hazard to construction workers
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
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
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
Construction safety awareness requires proactive notification and design consideration to protect workers from foreseeable traffic hazards
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
the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
{'entity_type': 'Construction and inspection workers', 'safety_exposure': 'Direct risk from illegal commercial vehicle traffic near scaffolding'}
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.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'OPQ Construction'}
{'type': 'safety_obligation_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer'}
{'license': 'Professional Engineering firm', 'deliverable': 'Signed and sealed bridge inspection report'}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Local Government'}
{'type': 'collaborates_with', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer'}
Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor Engineer
a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement
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
Contextual Calibration Public Safety Reporting Present Case vs Prior Cases
Commercial vehicle hazard reporting obligation calibration
Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
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
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
Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
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
each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved
the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Hazard
OPQ Construction Supervisor Present Case
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
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
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
{'role_type': 'Elected county legislative body', 'decision': 'Decided not to reopen the bridge'}
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.
{'type': 'authority_over', 'target': 'Non-Engineer Public Works Director BER 00-5'}
{'type': 'receives_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer'}
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors
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?
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn
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'?
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
Design Scaffolding Accommodating Commercial Vehicles
Design Scaffolding Accommodating Commercial Vehicles (Action 5) → Safety Hazard Condition Mitigated (modification of Event 3)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review and professional engineering ethics consensus
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding
Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered
Engineer A in evaluating obligations when directed by supervisor to proceed despite identified safety risk
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
Engineer A Accepts Design Assignment (Action 2) + Safety Hazard Condition Exists (Event 3) → Notify Supervisor of Hazard (Action 3) — obligation triggered
Engineer A BER 00-5 Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification
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.
Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification and Reporting Obligation
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.
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
Upon observing that the crutch pile solution had been implemented without follow-up inspection and that traffic was causing significant bridge movement
Engineer A BER 00-5 Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation
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.
Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Obligation
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.
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
Upon observing that the five-ton limit was being violated by log trucks and tankers on a regular basis
Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Bridge Collapse
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.
Imminent Widespread Bridge Collapse Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Obligation
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.
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
By failing to take this action, Engineer A would be ignoring his basic professional and ethical obligations
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
Engineer A BER 00-5 Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Constraint Bridge Collapse
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
Imminent Widespread Infrastructure Collapse Full-Bore Campaign Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; BER Cases 89-7, 90-5, 92-6
Following the unauthorized reopening of the condemned bridge with crutch piles and five-ton limit
the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation
Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Local government', 'specialty': 'Bridge/infrastructure engineering'}
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.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Local Government'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Consulting Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'County Commission'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State/Federal Transportation Officials'}
Engineer A was an engineer with a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge
Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon
Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing and this resulted in significant movement of the bridge
Engineer A BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Authority Bridge Reopening Non-Acquiescence Constraint
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
Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
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.
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
Following the non-engineer public works director's decision to reopen the condemned bridge
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Bridge Closure Non-Subordination Constraint
A rally was held and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission
Public Pressure Safety Determination Non-Subordination Constraint
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.
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
Following the community rally and petition presentation to the County Commission
Engineer A BER 00-5 Public Pressure Resistance Bridge Closure
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.
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Obligation
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.
During the period of public pressure following bridge closure and before bridge replacement was completed
Engineer A BER 00-5 Retired Inspector Unlicensed Practice Determination
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.
Retired Inspector Unlicensed Engineering Practice Determination and Reporting Obligation
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.
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
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
Engineer A BER 00-5 Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice Reporting Constraint
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
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Practice Act; BER Case 00-5
Following discovery of the retired bridge inspector's activities
Engineer A BER 07-10 Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion Safety Duty Barn
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
Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Duty Constraint
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.
Following the town's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the barn extension
Engineer A BER 07-10 Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County State Building Officials
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.
Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation Obligation
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.
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
Upon expiration of the reasonable deadline set in the written follow-up to the town supervisor
Engineer A BER 07-10 Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County State Building Officials
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter but no action was taken
Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
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.
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
Following Engineer A's initial verbal notification to the town supervisor about the barn structural risk
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
Engineer A BER 07-10 New Owner Priority Notification Jones Barn
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.
New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor Escalation Obligation
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.
it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
Upon learning of the structural modifications and before or contemporaneously with notifying the town supervisor
Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency
Engineer A BER 07-10 New Owner Priority Written Notification Barn Structural Deficiency
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
New Property Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Constraint
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.
Upon learning of Jones's structural modifications and the potential collapse risk
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural design', 'property_status': 'Former owner'}
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.
{'type': 'notifies', 'target': 'Jones New Owner'}
{'type': 'notifies', 'target': 'Town Supervisor'}
Prior Design Engineer with Post-Sale Safety Awareness
Engineer A designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter, but no action was taken
Four years later, Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
Engineer A BER 07-10 Written Notification Town Supervisor Barn Safety
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.
Post-Verbal-Notification Written Structural Safety Confirmation Obligation
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.
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
Following the verbal notification to the town supervisor that produced no action
Engineer A Client Relationship with OPQ Construction and State DOT
Ongoing — active during the inspection and repair contract period
Engineer A is a professional engineer employed by OPQ Construction.
Engineer A's employment relationship with OPQ Construction, which is under contract with the state department of transportation
Completion or termination of the contract or employment
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.
OPQ Construction's engagement by the state department of transportation and Engineer A's employment by OPQ Construction
Engineer A Construction Safety Competence Boundary Self-Recognition Scaffolding
Construction Safety Competence Boundary Self-Recognition Capability
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.
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.
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.
Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer
{'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'}
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.
{'type': 'contracted_client', 'target': 'State Department of Transportation'}
{'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'OPQ Construction Supervisor'}
{'type': 'public_safety_obligation_toward', 'target': 'Construction Workers and Passing Public'}
Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer
Engineer A is a professional engineer employed by OPQ Construction
From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway
Engineer A Corrective Action Options Presentation Supervisor Scaffolding Hazard
Engineer A must present actionable corrective options to his supervisor to enable informed decision-making about how to address the commercial vehicle hazard
Corrective Action Options Identification and Presentation for Illegal Traffic Hazard Obligation
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; FHWA MUTCD Work Zone Safety Standards
During supervisor notification and prior to design finalization
Engineer A Corrective Action Pre-Construction Resolution Identification Present Case
Corrective Action Pre-Construction Resolution Identification Capability
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.
Engineer A designing temporary inspection and construction scaffolding on an active parkway where commercial vehicles were illegally operating.
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.
Engineer A (OPQ Construction, present case)
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.
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.
Engineer A Corrective Options Presentation Supervisor Present Case
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.
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.
Contemporaneously with or immediately following notification of the safety hazard to the supervisor
Engineer A Crutch Pile Remediation Adequacy Collaborative Verification BER 00-5
Crutch Pile Remediation Adequacy Collaborative Verification Capability
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.
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.
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.
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.
Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement.
Engineer A DOT Law Enforcement Notification Through Supervisor Present Case
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.
DOT and Law Enforcement Notification Through Appropriate Responsible Party Obligation
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.
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
Prior to finalization of scaffolding design and commencement of construction
Engineer A Deadline-Conditioned Escalation County State Building Officials BER 07-10
Deadline-Conditioned Building Authority Escalation Capability
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.
Town supervisor received verbal notification of barn structural risk but took no action; Engineer A needed to escalate through written deadline-conditioned communication.
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.
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.
Engineer A Fact Command Pre-Reporting Readiness Constraint — Parkway Scaffolding
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.
Engineering Fact Command Pre-Reporting Readiness Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; Engineering Fact Command Pre-Reporting Readiness Constraint; BER Case 00-5
Prior to external escalation beyond the immediate supervisor
Engineer A Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation BER 00-5
Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Capability
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.
Bridge reopened with five-ton limit after inadequate crutch pile remediation; log trucks and tankers crossing regularly while school buses went around.
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.
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to go to Engineer A's supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.
Engineer A 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.
Engineer A Foreseeable Illegal Commercial Vehicle Use Scaffolding Design Parameter Constraint
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
Restricted-Use Infrastructure Illegal Third-Party Use Scaffolding Design Safety Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; OSHA Construction Scaffolding Standards; FHWA MUTCD Work Zone Safety Standards
During the scaffolding design phase, prior to finalization and assembly
safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern External Reporting Threshold Assessment
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.
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.
After notifying the supervisor and assessing the supervisor's response; conditionally triggered if the supervisor fails to address the hazard
Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern External Reporting Threshold Assessment Scaffolding
Gray Area Public Welfare Threshold Judgment Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern External Reporting Threshold Constraint
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.
Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint
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.
BER Case 00-5 (distinguished); Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint; NSPE Code of Ethics Section I
Prior to scaffolding assembly and construction commencement
Engineer A Graduated Danger Calibration — Parkway Scaffolding vs BER 00-5 Bridge
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.
Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Constraint
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.
BER Case 00-5 (distinguished); BER Case 07-10; NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Constraint principles
Throughout the scaffolding design and pre-construction phase
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Calibration Present Case vs BER 00-5 vs BER 07-10
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
Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence and Employment Context Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 00-5; BER Case 07-10
From the moment Engineer A identifies the commercial vehicle hazard through completion of scaffolding design and assembly
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
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
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Scaffolding Commercial Vehicle Hazard Present Case
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.
Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence and Employment Context Obligation
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.
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
Upon observation of the illegal commercial vehicle traffic and before finalizing the scaffolding design
Engineer A Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Writing Present Case
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.
Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Obligation
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.
Immediately upon observing the illegal commercial vehicle traffic, before finalizing the scaffolding design
Engineer A Illegal Vehicle Foreseeable Risk Scaffolding Safety Assessment
Illegal Vehicle Operation Foreseeable Risk Scaffolding Safety Assessment Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Scaffolding
Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Scaffolding Case
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.
Engineer A designing scaffolding for parkway cloverleaf ramp repair, having observed illegally operating commercial vehicles during personal commute.
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.
The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, is not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse involved in BER Case No. 00-5.
In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response.
Engineer A Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation BER 00-5
Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
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.
Engineer A as local government engineer responsible for a critically unsafe bridge reopened under public pressure with inadequate crutch pile remediation.
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.
the circumstances dictated a 'full-bore' campaign to bring this matter to the attention of public officials in positions of authority who could take immediate steps to address the situation.
Engineer A Incidental Commute Commercial Vehicle Observation Reporting Obligation
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.
Incidental Commute Observation Safety Reporting Obligation
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.
Upon recognizing the connection between the observed illegal traffic and the foreseeable safety risk to the scaffolding worksite, and before finalizing the scaffolding design
Engineer A Incidental Commute Observation Pre-Design Corrective Action Constraint
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.
Incidental Personal Observation Worksite Hazard Pre-Design Corrective Action Constraint
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.
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
Prior to and throughout the scaffolding design and assembly process
Engineer A Incidental Commute Observation Safety Reporting Present Case
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.
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.
Upon observing the illegal commercial vehicle traffic during his commute, before finalizing the scaffolding design
Engineer A Multi-Agency Jurisdiction Identification Scaffolding Safety Escalation
Multi-Agency Jurisdiction Identification for Safety Escalation Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Multi-Precedent Public Safety Duty Synthesis Present Case
Multi-Precedent Public Safety Duty Synthesis Capability
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.
Engineer A confronting the scaffolding safety dilemma and needing to calibrate response against the spectrum of BER precedent cases.
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.
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.
As the Board has noted before, there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
Engineer A New Owner Priority Notification Jones Barn BER 07-10
New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Capability
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.
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.
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.
in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency.
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Supervisor Refusal Scaffolding Safety Escalation
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.
Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation Obligation
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.
Conditionally triggered if and when the supervisor declines to address the identified hazard after receiving Engineer A's notification
Engineer A Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Override Recognition BER 00-5
Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Override Recognition and Resistance Capability
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.
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.
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.
A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit.
Engineer A Observed Illegal Commercial Vehicle Use Creating Scaffolding Hazard
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
Observed Illegal Third-Party Conduct Creating Worksite Hazard State
Engineer A's professional situation regarding the parkway scaffolding design assignment
Disclosure of the observed hazard to supervisor and client, followed by design modification or enforcement action
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
Engineer A Personal Commute Observation Professional Safety Duty Recognition
Personal Commute Observation Professional Safety Duty Recognition Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Pre-Construction Scaffolding Hazard Resolution Present Case
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.
Pre-Construction Scaffolding Design Safety Hazard Resolution Obligation
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.
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
Before finalizing scaffolding design and before construction commences
Engineer A Pre-Design Corrective Action Prerequisite Scaffolding Commercial Vehicle Hazard
Engineer A must design scaffolding for parkway ramp inspection while aware of foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard that has not yet been addressed
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.
Prior to finalization and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
Engineer A Precedent-Informed Calibration Present Case vs BER 00-5 vs BER 07-10
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.
Precedent-Informed Proportional Safety Response Calibration Obligation
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.
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
Throughout the period of identifying, reporting, and addressing the safety hazard
Engineer A Precedent-Informed Proportional Safety Response Calibration Present Case
Risk Imminence Comparative Case Calibration Capability
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.
Engineer A confronting scaffolding safety dilemma and needing to calibrate response against BER 00-5 and BER 07-10 precedent spectrum.
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.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'OPQ Construction', 'specialty': 'Scaffolding design for infrastructure inspection and repair'}
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.
{'type': 'client_project', 'target': 'State DOT Infrastructure Repair Client'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'OPQ Construction DOT Inspection Repair Employer'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'OPQ Construction Supervisor'}
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
prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
Engineer A Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation BER 00-5
Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation Recognition Capability
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.
Engineer A as local government engineer with specific assigned responsibility for the critically unsafe bridge reopened by a non-engineer public works director.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Public Pressure Non-Subordination Bridge Closure BER 00-5
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Capability
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.
Rally held and petition with approximately 200 signatures presented to County Commission asking that bridge be reopened to limited traffic.
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.
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Non-Subordination Employment Pressure Scaffolding
Engineer A may face pressure from his supervisor to proceed with scaffolding design despite the identified commercial vehicle hazard
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.
Throughout the scaffolding design and assembly process
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Scaffolding Design Constraint
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; BER Case 00-5; BER Case 89-7; BER Case 90-5
Throughout the scaffolding design, assembly, and construction period
Engineer A Public Safety at Risk — Worker and Public Endangerment from Scaffolding Proximity to Illegal Traffic
From the point Engineer A identifies the hazard through the design phase, until protective measures are implemented or the design is modified
Safety of construction and inspection workers and parkway users relative to the proposed scaffolding in a location frequented by illegally operating commercial vehicles
Implementation of adequate protective design measures, enforcement of the commercial vehicle prohibition, or withdrawal from the assignment
Engineer A's recognition that commercial vehicles illegally using the parkway could strike workers at the proposed scaffolding location
Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Scaffolding Design Obligation
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.
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.
Throughout the scaffolding design process
Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Scaffolding Design
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Public vs Private Employee Safety Escalation Distinction Present Case
Public Employee vs Private Employee Safety Escalation Distinction Capability
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.
Engineer A employed by OPQ Construction (private contractor) rather than by a local government agency with specific infrastructure responsibility.
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.
Engineer A Restricted-Use Enforcement Gap Design Reliance Constraint
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.
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.
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
Engineer A Restricted Parkway Illegal Use Scaffolding Design Parameter Constraint
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.
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.
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
During the scaffolding design phase, prior to finalization and submission
Engineer A Scaffolding Alternative Configuration Presentation Supervisor
Scaffolding Alternative Configuration Presentation for Traffic Hazard Mitigation Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Scaffolding Alternative Design Presentation Constraint
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.
Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint
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.
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
During the scaffolding design phase, prior to supervisor approval and finalization
Engineer A Scaffolding Alternative Design Presentation Supervisor
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.
Scaffolding Design Alternative Presentation for Traffic Hazard Mitigation Obligation
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.
During the design phase, before plans are finalized and submitted to the supervisor or state DOT
Engineer A Scaffolding Clearance Traffic Hazard Integration Design
Scaffolding Clearance and Traffic Hazard Integration Design Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Obligation
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.
Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Obligation
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.
During the scaffolding design phase, before plans are finalized and submitted
Engineer A Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Present Case
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.
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.
a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
During the scaffolding design phase, before design finalization and construction commencement
Engineer A Supervisor-First Escalation Sequencing Present Case
Supervisor-First Escalation Sequencing in Employment Context Capability
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.
Engineer A employed by OPQ Construction, a private contractor hired by state DOT, designing scaffolding for parkway ramp repair.
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.
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
Engineer A Supervisor-Mediated DOT Law Enforcement Notification Parkway Hazard
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
Supervisor-Mediated DOT and Law Enforcement Notification Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; OPQ Construction organizational structure; State DOT contract requirements
Following Engineer A's initial supervisor notification and prior to design finalization
Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response External Escalation Scaffolding Hazard Present Case
Engineer A faces the possibility that his supervisor may direct him to proceed with scaffolding design without addressing the foreseeable commercial vehicle hazard
Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety Design Finalization Prohibition Constraint
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.
prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction
Following supervisor notification and prior to design finalization, if supervisor declines to act
It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation
Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Design Finalization Prohibition
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I (public safety paramount); BER Case 00-5; Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint principles
Upon supervisor non-response or refusal to address the identified hazard, and continuing until the hazard is resolved or escalation is complete
Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation
Supervisor Non-Response Construction Safety External Escalation Capability
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation Present Case
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.
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.
If and when the supervisor declines to address the identified hazard after notification
appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
Engineer A Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Engineering Practice Determination BER 00-5
Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Engineering Practice Determination Capability
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Unverified Concern — Scaffolding Hazard Not Yet Formally Reported
From the time Engineer A formed the concern through the point at which it is formally communicated to the supervisor or client
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
Formal communication of the concern to the supervisor, client, or relevant authorities
Engineer A's personal observation of illegal commercial vehicle use combined with the scaffolding design assignment
Engineer A Written Notification Town Supervisor Barn Safety BER 07-10
Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor who agreed to look into the matter, but no action was taken.
Engineer A Written Supervisor Notification Commercial Vehicle Hazard
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.
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.
Promptly upon recognizing the safety risk, and before finalizing the scaffolding design
Engineer A Written Supervisor Notification Constraint — Commercial Vehicle Scaffolding Hazard
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.
Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a; professional obligation to document safety notifications; BER Case 00-5 escalation principles
Immediately upon identifying the hazard and prior to design finalization
Engineer A Written Supervisor Notification Illegal Vehicle Hazard
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A directed by supervisor to design scaffolding before Engineer A must decide how to act on safety concerns
Engineer A notifies supervisor of safety hazard before design and assembly of inspection and construction scaffolding
Engineer A receives bridge inspector telephone call before barricades and signs erected
Engineer A sells property to Jones before Jones proposes barn extension and removes columns/footings
Engineer A verbally contacts town supervisor before written follow-up notification to town supervisor
Engineer A's personal observations of commercial vehicles on parkway before Engineer A directed to design scaffolding
Engineer A's personal observations of commercial vehicles on parkway overlaps Engineer A's current scaffolding design assignment
NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Public Safety Escalation Obligations
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation
Engineer A and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
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
Ethical Dilemma — Engineer Obligation Scope in Public Safety
Throughout all cases discussed — BER 00-5, BER 07-10, and the present case
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
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
Resolution through appropriate escalation and corrective action in each specific case
This case illustrates one of the classic ethical dilemmas faced by professional engineers in their professional practice
Engineers identifying public safety risks and facing the question of how far their obligation extends in seeking corrective action
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) — Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control
Highway Work Zone Traffic Safety Standard
Engineer A and OPQ Construction in planning inspection and repair operations on state parkway ramps
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
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Assignment
OPQ Construction DOT Inspection Repair Employer
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
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
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
Faithful agent obligation is subordinate to public welfare paramount when the assigned design approach creates an unmitigated foreseeable risk to workers and the public
Faithful Agent Obligation Present Case OPQ Construction
Safety hazard notification to supervisor
Scaffolding design assignment for OPQ Construction
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
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
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
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)
Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Observation
Passing Public Parkway Safety Stakeholder
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
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
Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting
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
Graduated Danger Calibration — Present Case vs BER 00-5
From Engineer A's identification of the commercial vehicle hazard through implementation of corrective measures prior to scaffolding design
Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
Engineer A's obligation in the present parkway ramp inspection case, calibrated against the more severe BER 00-5 bridge case
Appropriate corrective action implemented prior to design and assembly of inspection scaffolding
In the present case, the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
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
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Commute Observation
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
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
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
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
{'property_status': 'Current owner', 'action_taken': 'Structural modification of barn'}
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.
{'type': 'approved_by', 'target': 'Town'}
{'type': 'receives_notification_from', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 07-10 Prior Design Engineer Barn'}
Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
Engineer A sold the property, including the barn, to Jones
Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the columns and footings that supported the roof
Jones removes columns and footings before town approves changes and issues certificate of occupancy
Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation — BER 00-5 Bridge
From Engineer A's observation of traffic flowing across the reopened bridge through the period in which appropriate authorities could have been contacted
State and federal transportation officials
Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation State
Engineer A's professional obligation following the unauthorized reopening of the condemned bridge
Would be terminated by adequate corrective action by responsible authorities
Engineer A observed that traffic was flowing and this resulted in significant movement of the bridge, with log trucks and tankers crossing regularly
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A in evaluating professional obligations regarding scaffolding design safety
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
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
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
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
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
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
Non-Engineer Authority Directing Bridge Reopening — BER 00-5
From the public works director's decision to have the retired bridge inspector examine the bridge through the reopening with a five-ton limit
Non-Engineer Authority Directing Post-Closure Reopening State
Non-engineer public works director's decision to commission unlicensed bridge inspection and authorize crutch pile installation
Not terminated — bridge was reopened and traffic was flowing with no follow-up inspection
A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
Non-Engineer Orders Crutch Pile Installation
Non-Engineer Orders Crutch Pile Installation (Action 9) → Crutch Piles Installed By Order (Event 5)
Non-Engineer Public Works Director BER 00-5
{'license': 'None (non-engineer)', 'authority': 'Public works director'}
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.
{'type': 'directs', 'target': 'Retired Bridge Inspector BER 00-5'}
{'type': 'overrides', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer'}
Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Maker
a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a five-ton limit
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk — BER 07-10 Barn
From Engineer A's assessment of the structural concern through adequate corrective action
Engineer A was concerned that the structure might be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
Barn structure's risk of collapse under severe snow loads following Jones's removal of structural columns and footings
Would be terminated by structural remediation or adequate inspection by building officials
Engineer A's professional assessment that removal of columns and footings created risk of collapse under severe snow loads
Non-Subordination Public Safety BER 00-5 Non-Engineer Override
Crutch pile solution without engineering review
Non-engineer override of bridge safety determination
Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
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
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
Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
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.
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
Notify Supervisor of Hazard (Action 3) — insufficient response → Escalate to DOT and Law Enforcement (Action 4)
{'entity_type': 'Private construction contractor', 'contract_authority': 'State Department of Transportation', 'project_scope': 'Highway and parkway on and off ramp inspection and repair'}
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.
{'type': 'contracted_by', 'target': 'State Department of Transportation'}
{'type': 'directs_through_supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Construction Contractor DOT Inspection Repair Employer
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
OPQ Construction Supervisor Commercial Vehicle Hazard Response Constraint
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint; BER Case 00-5
Upon receipt of Engineer A's notification of the commercial vehicle hazard
OPQ Construction Supervisor Commercial Vehicle Hazard Response Obligation
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.
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.
Upon receiving Engineer A's notification of the commercial vehicle hazard
OPQ Construction Supervisor Commercial Vehicle Hazard Response Safety Obligation
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.
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.
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.
OPQ Construction Supervisor Employer Relationship
{'entity_type': 'Supervisory employee of OPQ Construction', 'authority': "Directs Engineer A's design work assignments"}
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.
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer'}
Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp
{'employer': 'OPQ Construction', 'role_type': 'Immediate supervisor'}
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.
{'type': 'escalates_to', 'target': 'State DOT Infrastructure Repair Client'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A Present Case OPQ Construction Scaffolding Designer'}
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Construction Scaffolding Safety Standard
Engineer A in designing scaffolding for parkway cloverleaf ramp inspection and repair
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
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
Restricted-Use Infrastructure Enforcement Gap State
The parkway's legal noncommercial-only restriction versus observed actual use by commercial vehicles
Effective enforcement of the commercial vehicle prohibition, or revision of design parameters to account for actual observed conditions
Engineer A's repeated personal observation of commercial vehicles illegally using the noncommercial parkway
{'entity_type': 'General public using parkway', 'safety_exposure': 'Risk from scaffolding interaction with illegal commercial vehicle traffic'}
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.
Persistent Escalation BER 00-5 Multi-Authority Campaign
Multi-authority escalation after non-engineer override of safety determination
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
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
Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
The imminent and widespread nature of the bridge collapse risk required immediate multi-authority escalation rather than a measured graduated response
Persistent Escalation BER 07-10 Town Supervisor Follow-Up
Escalation to county/state building officials
Town supervisor follow-up after verbal notification produced no action
Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
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
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
Persistent escalation through written follow-up and deadline-setting was required to ensure the safety concern was adequately addressed
Post-Sale Structural Safety Concern — BER 07-10 Barn
From Engineer A learning of the extension and structural modifications through the period of monitoring and potential escalation
Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation State
Engineer A's continuing safety obligation regarding the barn after sale to Jones and Jones's structural modifications
Would be terminated by adequate corrective action by town supervisor or county/state building officials
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
Pre-Design Worksite Hazard Corrective Action Required — Present Case
From Engineer A's identification of the commercial vehicle hazard through implementation of corrective measures
Worksite Hazard Requiring Pre-Design Corrective Action State
Engineer A's obligation to secure corrective action regarding illegal commercial vehicle traffic before proceeding with scaffolding design and assembly for parkway ramp inspection
Implementation of corrective measures (heightened law enforcement, traffic closure, design accommodation, or other protective method) prior to scaffolding design and assembly
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
Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Hazard Mitigation
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
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
Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation for Public Safety
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
Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Present Case Scaffolding
Scaffolding design alternatives for commercial vehicle hazard mitigation
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
Multiple design and operational alternatives should be identified and presented to decision-makers so that the most appropriate protective measure can be selected
Presenting alternatives enables informed decision-making about the most appropriate protective measure for workers and the public
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Commercial Vehicle Hazard
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
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
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
Proactive Risk Disclosure Present Case Commercial Vehicle Hazard
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
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
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
Proportional Escalation Obligation BER 00-5 Full-Bore Campaign
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
The imminence and breadth of the bridge collapse risk required the most expansive form of escalation, contacting every authority with jurisdiction over the matter
The imminent and widespread nature of the risk required full-bore escalation overriding any deference to employer or political authority
Proportional Escalation Obligation BER 07-10 Measured Response
Written notification to owner and town supervisor
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
The non-imminent and limited scope of the barn structural risk permitted a graduated response with deadlines rather than immediate multi-authority escalation
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
The measured nature of the risk permitted a graduated escalation with deadlines before escalating to county/state building officials
Proportional Escalation Obligation Present Case vs BER 00-5
Commercial vehicle hazard to construction workers on parkway ramps
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
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
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
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Obligation BER 00-5
Bridge safety obligation as local government engineer
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
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
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
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
The combination of public employment role and imminent widespread risk required the most expansive escalation response available
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked BER 00-5 Bridge Closure
Bridge with rotten pilings 30 feet above stream
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
Public welfare in BER 00-5 required immediate closure, resistance to public pressure, and multi-authority escalation when non-engineers overrode engineering safety determinations
Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
Public welfare obligation was paramount and required full-bore multi-authority escalation given the imminence and breadth of the bridge collapse risk
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'
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Scaffolding Safety
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
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
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
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked In Present Case Scaffolding Safety
Commercial vehicle traffic hazard to workers
Construction scaffolding design for parkway cloverleaf ramp
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
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
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
the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Reinstall Permanent Barricades After Removal
Resistance to Public Pressure BER 00-5 Bridge Petition
Bridge closure maintenance against public pressure
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
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
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.
The County Commission upheld the closure based on Engineer A's technical explanation, demonstrating that professional safety determinations should prevail over public pressure
{'license': 'None (not an engineer)', 'status': 'Retired bridge inspector'}
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.
{'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'Non-Engineer Public Works Director BER 00-5'}
{'type': 'subject_to_report_by', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 00-5 Local Government Bridge Engineer'}
Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Performing Engineering Assessment
Safety Closure Enforcement Failure — BER 00-5 Barricades
From discovery on Monday that barricades had been dumped in the river through installation of more permanent barricades
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
Safety Closure Enforcement Failure State
Removal and destruction of barricades and signs erected by Engineer A to close the condemned bridge
More permanent barricades and signs were installed
Barricades found dumped in the river and 'bridge closed' sign found beyond the trees by the roadway on the Monday following Friday closure
Supervisor Directs Scaffolding Design (Action 1) + Commercial Vehicles Observed Illegally (Event 1) → Safety Hazard Condition Exists (Event 3)
Third-Party Direct Notification BER 07-10 Jones Barn Owner
Jones as new barn owner directly exposed to structural collapse risk
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
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
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
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
{'role_type': 'Municipal official', 'action_taken': 'No corrective action after verbal notification'}
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.
{'type': 'authority_over', 'target': 'Jones New Owner Barn Stakeholder'}
County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority
prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction
Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Practice — BER 00-5
From the public works director's direction to the retired inspector through the reopening decision based on that evaluation
a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
Unlicensed Inspector Performing Engineering Evaluation State
Retired bridge inspector (non-engineer) performing structural evaluation and recommending crutch pile solution
Not formally terminated — the evaluation was acted upon without engineering review
Non-engineer public works director directed a retired bridge inspector who was not an engineer to examine the bridge
Unlicensed Practice Challenge Obligation BER 00-5 Bridge Inspector
Non-engineer public works director directing engineering decisions
Retired bridge inspector performing engineering assessment
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
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
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
The obligation to report unlicensed practice to the licensing board prevailed over any deference to the non-engineer public works director's authority
Professional Norms Governing Reporting of Unlicensed Engineering Practice
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 00-5
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
Written Documentation Requirement BER 07-10 Barn Safety
Barn structural modification safety notification
Town supervisor and new owner notification
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
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
Written documentation was required even in the measured-response context of BER 07-10 to ensure the safety concern was unambiguously communicated and actionable
Written Documentation Requirement Invoked By Engineer A Safety Notification
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
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
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
Written Documentation Requirement Present Case Scaffolding Safety
Commercial vehicle hazard notification to OPQ Construction supervisor
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
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
Written documentation is required when verbal notification alone may be insufficient to ensure the safety concern is acted upon
authorization for bridge replacement obtained before state and federal transportation department reviews and tasks
barn designed and built by Engineer A before Engineer A sells property to Jones
barricades and signs erected on Friday before barricades found dumped in the river on Monday
barricades found dumped on Monday before more permanent barricades and signs installed
bridge reopened with five-ton limit before log trucks and tankers crossing regularly
certificate of occupancy issued before Engineer A learns of the extension
corrective action implemented (e.g., heightened law enforcement, traffic closure) before design and assembly of inspection and construction scaffolding
detailed inspection report delivered before authorization for bridge replacement obtained
environmental, geological, right-of-way studies overlaps preliminary site investigation studies
more permanent barricades installed before detailed inspection report delivered
nonengineer public works director decision to install crutch piles before bridge reopened with five-ton limit
petition with 200 signatures presented to County Commission before County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
preliminary site investigation studies after County Commission decision not to reopen bridge
state and federal transportation department reviews before funds released for bridge replacement
written confirmation to town supervisor before escalation to county or state building officials if no action taken