ProEthica Case 84 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.148325
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accepting Confidentiality Agreement
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Structural Engineer in private practice
foreseen unintended effects: Contractual constraint limiting Engineer A's ability to disclose findings to third parties or authorities
foreseen unintended effects: Potential future conflict between confidentiality obligation and duty to protect public safety
fulfills obligation text: Contractual obligation to honor agreed terms of engagement
fulfills obligation text: Faithful agent/trustee obligation to client (Section III.4)
guided by principle text: Client fidelity and trustee relationship
guided by principle text: Contractual integrity
guided by principle text: Professional discretion regarding client business affairs
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure the engagement and formalize the professional relationship with the client on the client's stated terms
raises obligation text: Prospective failure to protect public health and safety (Section I.1) by accepting terms that could foreseeably constrain safety reporting
requires capability text: Contract negotiation judgment
requires capability text: Ethical foresight regarding potential conflicts between confidentiality and safety obligations
requires capability text: Knowledge of NSPE Code provisions and their interactions
temporal marker: Pre-engagement, before structural tests began
temporal sequence: 1
violates obligation text: Failure to anticipate and negotiate exceptions for mandatory safety disclosures before accepting the confidentiality constraint
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A agreed to terms requiring the structural report to remain confidential before beginning work, knowing the client intended to sell the building 'as is' with no remediation. This pre-engagement decision bound Engineer A to non-disclosure obligations throughout the engagement.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Accepting Confidentiality Agreement → Occupants Remain Exposed to Hazard
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Because neither Engineer A nor the client reports the electrical and mechanical code violations to authorities, occupants remain exposed to hazard, a condition structurally enabled by the confidentiality agreement Engineer A accepted before beginning work
cause: Accepting Confidentiality Agreement
counterfactual: Had Engineer A declined confidentiality terms that precluded life-safety reporting, or negotiated an explicit safety exception, the agreement would not have functioned as a barrier to external disclosure and occupants may have received timely protection
effect: Occupants Remain Exposed to Hazard
necessary factors: Absence of any carve-out or exception for life-safety hazards within the agreement
necessary factors: Confidentiality agreement covering the scope of the structural report and related findings
necessary factors: Engineer A's prior acceptance of confidentiality terms before engagement began
necessary factors: Engineer A's subsequent reliance on the agreement to justify non-disclosure
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Confidentiality agreement accepted + electrical/mechanical violations disclosed + Engineer A's decision to treat agreement as binding override of public safety duty
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Agent-Trustee-Distinction-Framework-Instance
type: Agent-TrusteeDistinctionFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Agent-Trustee Conceptual Framework for Engineer-Client Relationships
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework
sourcetext: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients.
textreferences: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients.
textreferences: engineers as 'agents' or 'trustees' of such information are expected to maintain the confidential nature of the information revealed to them in the course of rendering their professional services.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in explaining the rationale for Section III.4
usedincontext: The Board invokes the agent/trustee characterization of the engineer-client relationship to explain the rationale for the non-disclosure obligation: engineers are privy to client business information and are expected to maintain its confidential nature
version: As applied in this BER case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.158342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Applicable-Building-Electrical-Mechanical-Codes-and-Standards
type: TechnicalStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Relevant code-setting bodies (e.g., NEC, ASME, local building authority)
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Applicable Codes and Standards (Electrical and Mechanical Systems)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Technical Standard
sourcetext: the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
textreferences: the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
usedby: Referenced by the client and recognized by Engineer A as the violated standard
usedincontext: The client explicitly acknowledges that the building's electrical and mechanical systems contain deficiencies that violate applicable codes and standards, establishing the objective benchmark against which the safety violations are measured
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.165833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

BER-Case-61-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 61-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: this Board has interpreted the language contained in Sections II.4. and III.4. particularly in the context of the obligations of employed engineers to maintain the confidences of their employer particularly with regard to certain confidential information which might be made available to the engineer during the course of employment as in Case 61-8
textreferences: this Board has interpreted the language contained in Sections II.4. and III.4. particularly in the context of the obligations of employed engineers to maintain the confidences of their employer particularly with regard to certain confidential information which might be made available to the engineer during the course of employment as in Case 61-8
usedby: Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning
usedincontext: Cited as precedent interpreting Sections II.4 and III.4 in the context of employed engineers' obligations to maintain employer confidences
version: 1961
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.156951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

BER-Case-82-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 82-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in Case 82-2, an engineering consultant performed home inspection services for a prospective purchaser of a residence and thereafter disclosed the contents of the report to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence. The Board reaffirmed the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client.
textreferences: The Board has interpreted Section II.1.c. on three different occasions (Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2)
textreferences: in Case 82-2, an engineering consultant performed home inspection services for a prospective purchaser of a residence and thereafter disclosed the contents of the report to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence. The Board reaffirmed the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning and distinguishing present facts
usedincontext: Cited as precedent on client confidentiality in private practice: engineer disclosed home inspection report to real estate firm; Board reaffirmed client's right of confidentiality and clarified that Section III.4 applies to confidential information transmitted by the client to the engineer
version: 1982
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.157097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

BER-Case-84-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 84-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Case 84-5 involved a client who planned a project and hired an engineer to furnish complete engineering services for the project.
textreferences: Case 84-5 involved a client who planned a project and hired an engineer to furnish complete engineering services for the project.
textreferences: They found it was unethical for the engineer to proceed with his work on the project knowing that the client would not agree to hire a full-time project representative.
textreferences: Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent for Engineer A's obligation to escalate or withdraw
usedincontext: Cited as the key analogical precedent: engineer proceeded with a dangerous project after client refused to hire a full-time on-site project representative; Board found it unethical for the engineer to 'go along' without insisting on safety measures or refusing to continue; applied by analogy to Engineer A's conduct
version: 1984
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.157267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

BER-Case-85-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 85-4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The Board has interpreted Section II.1.c. on three different occasions (Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2) but in none of those cases has the Board outlined the scope of the Code section.
textreferences: The Board has interpreted Section II.1.c. on three different occasions (Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2) but in none of those cases has the Board outlined the scope of the Code section.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in reviewing prior interpretations of Section II.1.c
usedincontext: Cited as one of three cases interpreting Section II.1.c, though the Board notes none of these cases fully outlined the scope of the exception permitting disclosure
version: 1985
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.157741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

BER-Case-87-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 87-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The Board has interpreted Section II.1.c. on three different occasions (Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2) but in none of those cases has the Board outlined the scope of the Code section.
textreferences: The Board has interpreted Section II.1.c. on three different occasions (Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2) but in none of those cases has the Board outlined the scope of the Code section.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in reviewing prior interpretations of Section II.1.c
usedincontext: Cited as one of three cases interpreting Section II.1.c, though the Board notes none of these cases fully outlined the scope of the exception permitting disclosure
version: 1987
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.157884
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Building Found Structurally Sound
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Reporting_Obligation
activates constraint: Professional_Honesty_Constraint
causes state change: Structural safety concern resolved; primary engagement objective met; Engineer A's focus can shift to other observations made during the assessment
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Document_Assessment_Results
creates obligation: Report_Structural_Findings_Accurately
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During structural assessment phase
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: low
comment: Following structural integrity tests, Engineer A's assessment yields the outcome that the 60-year-old apartment building is structurally sound, satisfying the primary scope of the engagement.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Building Occupants Stakeholder
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'occupancy_status': 'current occupants', 'risk_type': 'injury from electrical and mechanical code violations', 'awareness_of_violations': False}
caseinvolvement: Residents of the 60-year-old occupied apartment building who are exposed to injury risk from the undisclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; the paramount public safety duty owed to them is the central ethical tension in the case.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:37.537826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:37.537826+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Building Owner Selling As-Is Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'protected_by_duty_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: a 60-year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: a 60-year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.153704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 61-8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 61-8 interpretation before Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2, 84-5 interpretations
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: On numerous occasions, this Board has interpreted the language...as in Case 61-8. However, more recently, the Board has interpreted this language...For example, in Case 82-2
from entity text: Case 61-8 interpretation
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2, 84-5 interpretations
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Cases 82-2 85-4 87-2 84-5 interpretations
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.184169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 82-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 84-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 84-5 Client Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client
type: Cost-ObjectingSafetyStaffingRefusingClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'precedent_case': 'Case 84-5', 'objection_basis': 'Cost', 'safety_measure_refused': 'Full-time on-site project representative'}
caseinvolvement: Referenced from Case 84-5: a client who retained an engineer for complete engineering services, was advised that a full-time on-site project representative was needed for safety during the dangerous construction phase, and refused to authorize the measure on cost grounds — pressuring the engineer to proceed without the required safeguard.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:23.846172+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:23.846172+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Case 84-5 Engineer Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client
sourcetext: the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
textreferences: After reviewing the complete project plans and costs, the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly
textreferences: the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.156200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Analogous Violation Instance
type: PassiveAcquiescenceEthicalInsufficiencySelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Passive Acquiescence Ethical Insufficiency Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The engineer in Case 84-5 failed to recognize that proceeding with the dangerous construction phase project without insisting on a full-time on-site project representative — after the client refused on cost grounds — constituted an independent ethical violation through passive acquiescence
casecontext: Case 84-5 engineer recommended full-time on-site project representative for dangerous construction phase; client refused on cost grounds; engineer proceeded without insisting or withdrawing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Proceeding with the project without dissent or comment after the client refused to hire a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction phase
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Case 84-5 Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous
textreferences: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous
textreferences: The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.180178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Construction Phase
type: PassiveSafetyAcquiescenceIndependentEthicalViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Analogical precedent applied to Engineer A's case; engineer proceeded with dangerous project after client refused to fund safety-protective measure
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer in Case 84-5
constraintclass: Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: The engineer in Case 84-5 violated the prohibition on going along without dissent by proceeding with the dangerous construction phase project after the client refused to hire a full-time on-site project representative — the engineer neither insisted on the safety measure nor withdrew from the project, constituting an independent ethical violation that the Board applied by analogy to Engineer A's situation.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case 84-5; NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
sourcetext: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous.
temporalscope: During the construction phase of the project in Case 84-5
textreferences: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous.
textreferences: The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 84 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 5
event count: 6
total elements: 11
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 85-4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 87-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

CausalLink_Accepting Confidentiality Agre
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

CausalLink_Conducting Structural Integrit
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

CausalLink_Declining to Report Violations
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

CausalLink_Documenting Conversation in Re
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

CausalLink_Verbally Warning Client of Dan
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Client-Confidentiality-vs-Public-Safety-Balancing-Framework
type: ClientConfidentialityvs.PublicSafetyBalancingFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
usedby: Engineer A when deciding whether to report safety violations to third parties despite confidentiality terms
usedincontext: Governs how Engineer A must weigh the contractual confidentiality agreement against the paramount obligation to protect occupants from known electrical and mechanical hazards that violate applicable codes
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.165201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Client-Confidentiality-vs-Public-Safety-Balancing-Framework-Instance
type: ClientConfidentialityvs.PublicSafetyBalancingFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
sourcetext: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
textreferences: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
textreferences: We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in resolving the core ethical conflict
usedincontext: The Board explicitly constructs and applies a framework for balancing the engineer's confidentiality obligation (Sections II.4, III.4) against the paramount public safety obligation (Section I.1, II.1.a), concluding that public safety takes precedence and the engineer must escalate or withdraw rather than 'go along'
version: As applied in this BER case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.158111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Client Retains Engineer A
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Confidentiality_Obligation
activates constraint: Professional_Competence_Constraint
activates constraint: Scope_of_Engagement_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from unengaged professional to retained engineer with contractual and ethical duties to client; confidentiality framework now governs all findings
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Act_In_Client_Interest_Within_Ethical_Limits
creates obligation: Maintain_Confidentiality
creates obligation: Perform_Competent_Assessment
emergency status: routine
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Beginning of engagement
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: low
comment: A client formally engages Engineer A to assess the structural integrity of a 60-year-old occupied apartment building prior to its sale, establishing a professional relationship with a confidentiality agreement in place.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's failure to report was unethical, the confidentiality agreement itself cannot bear the interpretive weight Engineer A assigned to it. Section II.1.c expressly releases engineers from confidentiality obligations when public danger is present, meaning the contractual arrangement never legally or ethically foreclosed disclosure to public authorities. Engineer A's reliance on the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to external reporting therefore reflects a fundamental misreading of the NSPE Code's internal hierarchy: the agreement was a valid constraint on routine business disclosures, but it was categorically inapplicable to life-safety code violations in an occupied residential building. The ethical failure was not merely that Engineer A chose confidentiality over safety — it was that Engineer A treated a conditional obligation as an absolute one, never activating the exception clause the Code explicitly provides.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 302
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.4.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that reporting was ethically required is strengthened — not weakened — by the fact that the hazardous information was voluntarily disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered by Engineer A during inspection. Section I.1's public safety obligation is framed in terms of the engineer's knowledge of danger, not the source of that knowledge. A client's voluntary disclosure does not transform dangerous information into protected business intelligence; it simply means the engineer received confirmed, first-hand knowledge of a life-safety hazard directly from the party responsible for it. If anything, client-transmitted disclosure eliminates the epistemic uncertainty that might otherwise justify caution before reporting, because the engineer need not rely on inference or indirect evidence — the client has affirmatively confirmed the violations exist. The source of the information therefore strengthens rather than modulates the reporting obligation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies within a confidential structural report constitutes a procedural gesture that affirmatively failed to discharge any meaningful ethical obligation. By embedding safety-critical information in a document contractually shielded from third-party disclosure, Engineer A created a record of awareness while simultaneously ensuring that the parties most exposed to the hazard — the building's current occupants — and the regulatory authorities empowered to act on it would never receive the information. This is not a partial discharge of the notification duty; it is a form of ethical concealment dressed as disclosure. The NSPE Code's public safety obligation under Section I.1 and the notification duty under Section II.1.a are directed at outcomes — specifically, that endangered parties receive actionable information — not at the mere creation of internal documentation. A confidential mention satisfies neither the letter nor the spirit of those provisions.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: Engineer A's lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering does not diminish the reporting obligation and may not be invoked as a scope-of-work defense. The threshold for triggering the public safety duty under Section I.1 requires only that the engineer recognize a risk of injury — not that the engineer be technically qualified to evaluate, quantify, or remediate it. Engineer A explicitly acknowledged recognizing that the disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to occupants. That recognition alone activated the reporting duty. The competence boundary argument, if accepted, would produce an absurd result: engineers would be ethically insulated from reporting known dangers simply because those dangers fall outside their primary discipline. The Code contains no such carve-out, and the Board's precedents in analogous cases confirm that out-of-scope safety findings carry independent disclosure obligations. Engineer A's disciplinary limitations were relevant to the scope of his remediation authority — they were irrelevant to his obligation to notify public authorities of a known hazard.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: Engineer A's passive acquiescence after verbally warning the client constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from and in addition to the failure to report to public authorities. The Board's precedent in BER Case 84-5 establishes that an engineer who goes along with a client's safety-compromising decision without formal dissent or escalation commits an ethical violation even if the engineer privately disagreed. Engineer A's single verbal warning, followed by silent compliance with the client's 'as is' sale directive, mirrors precisely the going-along-without-dissent pattern condemned in that precedent. The ethical obligation required Engineer A to either insist on remedial action, formally document objection and withdraw from the project, or escalate to public authorities — not to treat a verbal protest as a terminal act of compliance. Passive acquiescence after a client overrules safety concerns is not a neutral act; it is an affirmative ethical failure under Section II.1.a, which requires engineers whose judgment is overruled under life-endangering circumstances to notify appropriate authorities.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The ethical analysis reveals a structural problem that preceded Engineer A's conduct during the engagement: the failure to negotiate a life-safety carve-out from the confidentiality agreement at the outset. An engineer who accepts a blanket confidentiality agreement without reserving the right to disclose safety-critical information to public authorities has, at the moment of contracting, already compromised the ability to fulfill the paramount duty under Section I.1. While the Board did not address this antecedent failure, it represents a distinct ethical lapse — not merely a procedural oversight. Engineers are not passive recipients of contract terms; they are professionals with independent ethical obligations that cannot be contracted away. Accepting confidentiality terms that purport to suppress life-safety disclosures, without negotiating explicit exceptions, creates the very conflict that Engineer A later used as a justification for inaction. The ethical obligation to protect public safety begins before the engagement commences and includes the duty to structure contractual arrangements in ways that preserve — rather than foreclose — the ability to fulfill that obligation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 302
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: The fact that the hazardous information was voluntarily disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered by Engineer A does not reduce — and may actually strengthen — Engineer A's reporting obligation. The NSPE Code's paramount safety duty in Section I.1 is framed in terms of the engineer's knowledge of danger, not the source of that knowledge. Once Engineer A possessed actual knowledge that occupants of an occupied building faced injury from known code violations, the ethical trigger was complete regardless of how that knowledge was acquired. If anything, the client's voluntary disclosure eliminated any ambiguity about whether the violations existed, removing the epistemic uncertainty that might otherwise counsel caution before reporting. The argument that client-confided information deserves heightened confidentiality protection under Section III.4 is not without force, but it cannot override the explicit exception in Section II.1.c, which releases engineers from confidentiality obligations precisely when public danger is present. The source of the information is therefore ethically irrelevant to the reporting threshold; it is relevant only to the weight of the confidentiality interest being overridden, and even that interest is expressly subordinated by the Code when safety is at stake.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 4
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.1.a.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his confidential structural report did not constitute a meaningful discharge of any ethical obligation to protect public safety. On the contrary, it created a false appearance of compliance — a record that Engineer A had 'noted' the violations — while structurally ensuring that the information would never reach the parties who needed it most: the building's current occupants and the public authorities responsible for enforcing safety codes. A disclosure that is deliberately confined to a document the client controls, that no regulator will ever see, and that no occupant will ever read is functionally equivalent to no disclosure at all from a public safety standpoint. The NSPE Code's obligation under Section II.1.a requires notification to appropriate authorities when professional judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property. A notation in a confidential report addressed to the party who has already refused remediation satisfies none of the elements of that obligation: it reaches no authority, it triggers no regulatory response, and it protects no occupant. The brief mention therefore represents a procedural gesture that obscures rather than discharges the substantive ethical duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Engineer A's lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering does not diminish his obligation to report the known code violations to public authorities. The threshold for triggering a public safety reporting duty under the NSPE Code requires only that the engineer recognize a risk of injury to the public — not that he be technically qualified to evaluate, diagnose, or remediate the hazard. Engineer A himself acknowledged that the disclosed deficiencies 'could cause injury to the occupants,' which means the recognition threshold was met by his own assessment. The scope-of-work and domain-competence arguments function as incomplete defenses at best: they might limit Engineer A's authority to demand specific corrective measures or to certify the severity of the violations, but they do not limit his capacity to convey to a public authority that a client has disclosed the existence of code violations in an occupied building. Reporting what one knows to those with the competence and authority to investigate is precisely the appropriate response when an engineer encounters a hazard outside his discipline. Domain incompetence is therefore a reason to escalate to qualified authorities, not a reason to remain silent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.090679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer A had an independent ethical obligation to consider notifying the building's current occupants directly of the known code violations, separate from any duty to report to regulatory or public authorities. The occupants of the 60-year-old apartment building are the parties most immediately and continuously exposed to the hazard: they live within it, they cannot protect themselves from dangers they do not know exist, and they have no contractual relationship with Engineer A that would generate any competing confidentiality interest. While the NSPE Code's explicit reporting pathway runs through 'appropriate public authorities' under Section II.1.a, the paramount safety obligation in Section I.1 is not exhausted by that single channel. When regulatory reporting is the most effective route, it should be pursued; but when occupants are immediately at risk and regulatory response may be delayed, direct notification to those at risk is consistent with — and may be required by — the spirit of the paramount safety obligation. Engineer A's failure to consider this pathway represents an additional dimension of ethical shortcoming beyond the failure to notify authorities.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.090772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The conflict between the faithful agent principle under Section II.4 and the paramount safety obligation under Section I.1 is resolved unambiguously by the NSPE Code's own internal hierarchy: public safety is explicitly designated as paramount, meaning it takes precedence over all other duties including client loyalty and confidentiality. The faithful agent role is not absolute — it is expressly conditioned on the engineer acting 'within ethical limits,' and those limits are defined in part by the safety obligations in Sections I.1 and II.1.a. The condition that triggers the override is not merely theoretical danger but actual knowledge of a hazard that could cause injury to occupants, which Engineer A possessed. Engineer A's misapplication of the faithful agent principle as a basis for confidentiality absolutism therefore represents a category error: he treated a conditional, subordinate duty as though it were unconditional and supreme. The principle that controls is public safety, and the condition under which it controls is precisely the one present in this case — known, code-violating hazards in an occupied building.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094617
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The tension between Section III.4's protection of client-transmitted confidential information and Section II.1.c's explicit exception releasing engineers from confidentiality when public danger is present is resolved by reading the Code as an integrated normative system rather than a collection of isolated provisions. Section III.4 establishes a genuine confidentiality obligation that applies to business affairs and technical processes disclosed by clients, and the fact that the client voluntarily confided the violations to Engineer A does carry some weight in calibrating the confidentiality interest at stake. However, Section II.1.c is not a general provision — it is a specific exception clause that was drafted precisely to address the situation where confidentiality and public danger collide. Specific exception clauses override general rules in any coherent normative system. Moreover, the source of the information (client disclosure versus independent discovery) may modulate the weight of the confidentiality interest, but it cannot eliminate the operation of an explicit exception clause. Engineer A's failure to activate Section II.1.c therefore cannot be justified by appeal to Section III.4, because the Code itself resolves that conflict in favor of disclosure when danger to the public is present.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed to fulfill his categorical duty to protect public safety. The NSPE Code's structure is explicitly hierarchical: Section I.1 designates public safety as paramount, and Section II.1.c contains an express exception clause that releases engineers from confidentiality obligations when public danger is involved. A deontological analysis does not require Engineer A to calculate consequences — it requires him to follow the duty that the Code itself identifies as supreme. The confidentiality obligation under Sections II.1.c and III.4 is not a categorical duty in the Kantian sense; it is a conditional duty that yields when the paramount duty is triggered. Engineer A's reliance on the confidentiality agreement as a categorical bar to disclosure therefore inverts the Code's own normative hierarchy. He treated a subordinate, conditional obligation as though it were absolute, while treating the paramount, unconditional obligation as though it were merely one consideration among many. This inversion is not a defensible interpretation of the Code — it is a failure to apply the Code's own explicit priority rules.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's decision to limit disclosure to a brief mention in a confidential report produced the worst reasonably foreseeable outcome for the most vulnerable affected parties. The building's current occupants — who had no knowledge of the violations, no ability to protect themselves, and no contractual relationship with Engineer A — remained continuously exposed to electrical and mechanical hazards that the client had already acknowledged violated applicable codes. The client's interests were served in the short term by the suppression of the violations, but even those interests are not clearly advanced by a strategy that exposes the client to future liability for selling a building with known, undisclosed safety defects. Engineer A's professional standing was not protected by his silence — it was ultimately condemned. The only outcome that would have produced the best reasonably achievable result for all affected parties was notification of public authorities, which would have triggered regulatory inspection, potentially required remediation before sale, and protected occupants from ongoing exposure. The consequentialist calculus therefore aligns with the deontological conclusion: reporting was the ethically required action.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.4.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a licensed engineer. Virtue ethics asks not merely whether an agent followed rules but whether the agent acted as a person of good character would act in the circumstances. A virtuous engineer, upon learning that occupants of an occupied building faced injury from known code violations, would not have passively acquiesced to the client's 'as is' sale directive after a single verbal warning. Moral courage — a core professional virtue — requires the willingness to act on one's convictions even when doing so is costly, inconvenient, or contrary to a client's economic interests. Engineer A's conduct reflects the opposite disposition: he identified the danger, warned the client privately, documented the warning in a document no one outside the transaction would ever see, and then did nothing further. This pattern of behavior — identifying a problem, performing a minimal gesture, and then acquiescing — is precisely what the BER condemned in Case 84-5 as 'going along' without meaningful dissent. A virtuous engineer would have insisted on remedial action, withdrawn from the project if refused, or escalated to public authorities — not performed a procedural gesture designed to create a record of awareness while ensuring no protective action was taken.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.094954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: Engineer A's failure to negotiate a carve-out from the confidentiality agreement for life-safety code violations before accepting the engagement represents a preliminary ethical lapse that created the conditions for all subsequent failures. A prudent engineer, aware that he was being retained to inspect an occupied building and that confidentiality would be required, should have anticipated that the inspection might uncover — or that the client might disclose — safety-critical information. Negotiating an explicit exception permitting disclosure of life-safety violations to public authorities would have been consistent with the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation and would have placed the client on notice from the outset that safety disclosures were non-negotiable. The failure to do so does not excuse Engineer A's subsequent inaction — the Code's safety obligations exist independently of contractual terms and cannot be waived by agreement — but it does represent a missed opportunity to prevent the ethical conflict from arising at all. Engineers who accept confidentiality agreements without safety carve-outs in contexts where safety-critical discoveries are foreseeable are not merely passive victims of an unforeseen conflict; they are partially responsible for creating the conditions that made the conflict inevitable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
cited provision3: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: Had Engineer A immediately notified the appropriate public authorities upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations, the most likely consequences would have been: regulatory inspection of the building, potential enforcement action requiring remediation before occupancy could continue or the sale could proceed, protection of current occupants from ongoing exposure to the hazard, and possible delay or restructuring of the client's 'as is' sale. These consequences would have been ethically preferable to the outcome that actually occurred — in which occupants remained exposed, the client proceeded with a sale concealing known violations, and Engineer A's conduct was ultimately condemned. The client's short-term economic interests would have been disrupted, but the client had no legitimate interest in selling a building with known, code-violating safety defects to an uninformed buyer while current occupants remained at risk. Engineer A's professional standing would have been protected, not harmed, by compliance with the Code's paramount safety obligation. The counterfactual therefore confirms that the ethically correct action was available, feasible, and would have produced better outcomes for every party except the client's immediate economic interest — which the Code does not recognize as a legitimate basis for suppressing safety disclosures.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Engineer A had been a licensed electrical or mechanical engineer rather than solely a structural engineer, the scope-of-work and domain-competence arguments would have carried no weight whatsoever, and the ethical obligation to report the known life-safety code violations to public authorities would have been even more clearly and unambiguously triggered. The domain-competence argument, as applied in the actual case, is already an incomplete defense — it limits Engineer A's authority to evaluate or certify the violations but does not limit his duty to report what he knows. In the counterfactual where Engineer A possessed full competence in the relevant domains, he would have had both the knowledge and the technical authority to assess the severity of the violations, making the case for reporting even stronger. This counterfactual confirms that domain incompetence functions as a marginal modulator of the reporting obligation at most — it might affect the specificity of what the engineer reports, but it cannot eliminate the duty to report the existence of known hazards to those with authority to investigate and enforce. The reporting obligation is triggered by knowledge of danger, not by technical mastery of the domain in which the danger exists.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.1.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: Drawing on the precedent established in BER Case 84-5, formal documentation of Engineer A's objection to the client's 'as is' sale decision — even if it had been explicit and emphatic rather than merely a brief mention in a confidential report — would not alone have been sufficient to discharge the ethical obligation. Case 84-5 established that an engineer who 'goes along' with a client's safety-overriding decision without meaningful dissent commits an independent ethical violation, but the lesson of that case is not that dissent alone is sufficient — it is that dissent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical compliance when public safety is at stake. The NSPE Code's obligation under Section II.1.a requires notification to appropriate authorities when professional judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property. This is an affirmative duty to act, not merely a duty to object. An engineer who formally objects, documents the objection, and then does nothing further has satisfied the dissent requirement of Case 84-5 but has not satisfied the notification requirement of Section II.1.a. Subsequent escalation to public authorities would therefore still have been required, because the Code's safety obligation is not discharged by internal protest — it is discharged by ensuring that those with authority to protect the public are informed.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between client confidentiality and public safety was not genuinely unresolvable in this case — it was falsely treated as such by Engineer A. The NSPE Code does not present these principles as equals requiring ad hoc balancing; it establishes a normative hierarchy in which public safety is explicitly paramount. Section I.1 places the safety, health, and welfare of the public at the apex of engineering obligation, and Section II.1.c contains an explicit exception clause that releases engineers from confidentiality duties precisely when public danger is present. Engineer A's error was not a failure of judgment in a genuinely ambiguous situation but a failure to recognize that the Code had already resolved the tension in advance. By treating confidentiality as an absolute constraint capable of overriding a known life-safety hazard in an occupied building, Engineer A inverted the Code's own priority structure. This case teaches that when the Code itself contains an exception clause addressing the exact conflict an engineer faces, invoking the general confidentiality rule while ignoring the exception is not a defensible ethical position — it is a misreading of the Code's architecture.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 4
cites provision: II 1 c
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The source of the hazardous information — client voluntary disclosure rather than independent discovery — introduced a genuine complication that the Board did not fully resolve, but that complication does not ultimately alter the outcome. Section III.4 does create a distinct confidentiality weight for information transmitted by a client in confidence, and this distinguishes the case from one where an engineer independently discovers a defect during inspection. However, Section I.1's public safety obligation is framed in terms of the engineer's knowledge of danger, not the origin of that knowledge. Once Engineer A possessed knowledge that occupants of an occupied building faced injury from known code violations, the triggering condition for the paramount safety duty was satisfied regardless of how that knowledge was acquired. The source-of-information distinction is therefore relevant to calibrating the confidentiality weight on one side of the balance, but it cannot extinguish the safety obligation on the other side when the hazard is concrete, known, and affecting identifiable persons. This case teaches that Section III.4 and Section II.1.c must be read together, not in isolation: the former establishes that client-transmitted information carries confidentiality expectations, while the latter establishes that those expectations yield when public danger is present.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 4
cites provision: I 1
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: Engineer A's domain incompetence in electrical and mechanical engineering does not diminish his reporting obligation, and this case establishes an important principle about the threshold for triggering a public safety duty: recognition of injury risk, not technical competence to evaluate it, is the operative standard. Engineer A himself acknowledged that the disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to occupants — that acknowledgment is precisely the threshold event. The duty to hold public safety paramount does not require the engineer to be able to diagnose, quantify, or remediate the hazard; it requires only that the engineer recognize that a hazard exists and that persons are exposed to it. Requiring technical competence as a precondition for reporting would perversely insulate engineers from safety obligations in exactly those situations where they are most dependent on others' expertise — and would allow scope-of-work boundaries to function as shields against accountability. This case teaches that the faithful agent role under Section II.4 is bounded by ethical limits, and that those limits include the obligation not to allow disciplinary boundaries to suppress safety-critical information from reaching appropriate authorities.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 a
cites provision: II 1 c
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.1.a.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: Engineer A's passive acquiescence after verbally warning the client constitutes an independent ethical failure distinct from the failure to report to public authorities, and this case teaches that the duty of non-acquiescence has both a procedural and a substantive dimension. Procedurally, as established in BER Case 84-5, an engineer who disagrees with a client's safety-compromising decision must formally document that objection — a single verbal warning does not satisfy the requirement. Substantively, even formal objection and documented dissent do not discharge the engineer's obligation when the hazard remains active and occupants remain exposed: the engineer must either insist on remedial action, withdraw from the project, or escalate to public authorities. The brief mention in a confidential report satisfies neither the procedural nor the substantive dimension — it is a record that ensures the information will never reach those who need it, while creating a superficial appearance of disclosure. This case therefore teaches that the principle requiring insistence on remedial action or withdrawal under Section II.1.a and the principle requiring appropriate authority notification when professional judgment is overruled are sequential obligations, not alternatives: exhausting one does not eliminate the other.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conducting Structural Integrity Tests
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Structural Engineer in private practice
foreseen unintended effects: Findings would be confined to structural matters, leaving non-structural safety deficiencies outside the formal scope
fulfills obligation text: Faithful performance of contracted professional services
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to perform professional services competently within area of licensure (structural engineering)
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to provide honest and accurate findings to the client
guided by principle text: Competence and technical integrity
guided by principle text: Faithful service to client within agreed scope
guided by principle text: Honest and objective professional practice
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Fulfill the contracted scope of work by assessing and reporting on the structural integrity of the building
requires capability text: Interpretation of structural test results
requires capability text: Professional judgment regarding structural soundness of aging buildings
requires capability text: Structural engineering analysis and testing
temporal marker: During engagement, after agreement was signed
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A performed several structural tests on the 60-year-old occupied apartment building as retained, ultimately determining the building to be structurally sound. This was the primary professional service for which he was engaged.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Conducting Structural Integrity Tests → Building Found Structurally Sound
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Following structural integrity tests, Engineer A's assessment yields the outcome that the 60-year-old building is structurally sound: the tests are the direct and necessary cause of this finding, which in turn shaped the scope and framing of the final report
cause: Conducting Structural Integrity Tests
counterfactual: Without the tests, no finding of structural soundness could have been made; alternatively, had the building been structurally unsound, the same tests would have produced a different finding requiring different action
effect: Building Found Structurally Sound
necessary factors: Engineer A's performance of the structural tests as retained
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional competence to interpret test results accurately
necessary factors: The building's actual structural condition being sound
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Performance of tests + structurally sound building condition = sufficient to produce a finding of structural soundness
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidential Report Completed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Accurate_Reporting_Obligation
activates constraint: Professional_Honesty_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: The engagement is formally closed with a written record that acknowledges but does not act upon the known hazard; the report becomes evidence of Engineer A's knowledge and the inadequacy of his response; the confidential framing further insulates the violation information from reaching those who could act on it
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Potentially_Disclose_Report_If_Safety_Requires
creates obligation: Preserve_Record_Of_Known_Hazard
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Conclusion of engagement
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer A produces a confidential written report that documents the structural assessment findings and includes only a brief mention of the conversation about electrical and mechanical code violations, without escalating or formally flagging the safety hazard.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.161135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A report the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, or treat the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to external disclosure?
focus: Engineer A, having learned from the client that the occupied apartment building contains electrical and mechanical code violations that could injure occupants, must decide whether to report those violations to appropriate public authorities or to treat the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to external disclosure — notwithstanding the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation in Section I.1 and the explicit exception clause in Section II.1.c.
option1: Notify appropriate public authorities (building code enforcement, fire marshal, or housing authority) of the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations, invoking Section II.1.c's explicit exception to the confidentiality obligation on the grounds that public danger is present.
option2: Treat the signed confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to external disclosure, relying on Section III.4's protection of client-transmitted confidential information and the faithful agent role under Section II.4, while limiting disclosure to the brief mention in the confidential structural report.
option3: Inform the client that Engineer A will withdraw from the engagement and notify public authorities unless the client either undertakes remediation or authorizes Engineer A to disclose the violations to appropriate authorities, treating the ultimatum as a final attempt to resolve the conflict within the client relationship before escalating externally.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: After the client refused remediation, should Engineer A have escalated to public authorities or formally withdrawn from the project, or was a brief mention of the violations in the confidential structural report a sufficient discharge of his ethical obligation?
focus: Having verbally warned the client of the danger and received the client's 'as is' sale directive, Engineer A must decide whether passive acquiescence — limited to a brief mention of the violations in a confidential structural report — constitutes adequate discharge of his ethical obligation, or whether the NSPE Code requires affirmative escalation beyond client notification when professional judgment on a life-safety matter is overruled.
option1: Following the client's refusal to remediate, notify appropriate public authorities (building code enforcement, fire marshal, or housing authority) of the known electrical and mechanical code violations, recognizing that Section II.1.a requires escalation when professional judgment on life-endangering matters is overruled by the client.
option2: Formally withdraw from the engagement after the client refuses remediation, documenting the objection in writing, on the grounds that continued participation would constitute going along with a safety-compromising decision — while treating the confidentiality agreement as still barring external disclosure to public authorities.
option3: Complete the structural engagement, include a written record of the client's disclosure and Engineer A's verbal warning in the confidential structural report, and take no further action — treating the written documentation as a sufficient discharge of the notification obligation given the scope-of-work limitation and the confidentiality agreement.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A report the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical violations to public authorities despite lacking competence in those domains, or does his structural-only scope of work and domain incompetence limit his reporting obligation to client notification alone?
focus: Engineer A must determine whether his lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering — combined with the fact that the violations were disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered — diminishes or eliminates his obligation to report those violations to public authorities, or whether the NSPE Code's public safety duty is triggered by recognition of injury risk alone, making domain incompetence a reason to escalate rather than a reason to remain silent.
option1: Notify appropriate public authorities of the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations, conveying what the client confirmed rather than what Engineer A independently assessed, on the grounds that the recognition of injury risk — not technical mastery — is the operative threshold for the public safety reporting duty.
option2: Treat the verbal warning to the client as the limit of Engineer A's authority to act on out-of-discipline violations, on the grounds that his structural scope of work and lack of electrical and mechanical competence constrain both his ability to evaluate the severity of the hazard and his professional authority to demand or report corrective action beyond his discipline.
option3: Decline to report directly to public authorities given domain incompetence, but condition delivery of the structural report on the client retaining a licensed electrical and mechanical engineer to assess and certify the disclosed violations — treating the engagement of a competent specialist as the appropriate escalation pathway consistent with the competence boundary recognition obligation.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A report the known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, or confine disclosure to a brief mention in the confidential structural report delivered only to the client?
focus: Engineer A, having accepted a confidentiality agreement and learned through client disclosure that an occupied apartment building contains electrical and mechanical code violations capable of injuring occupants, must decide whether to report those violations to appropriate public authorities — or to limit disclosure to a brief mention in the confidential structural report addressed solely to the client. The core tension is between the paramount safety obligation under NSPE Code Section I.1 and Section II.1.a, which requires notification of appropriate authorities when professional judgment on life-endangering matters is overruled, and the confidentiality obligation under Sections II.1.c and III.4, which Engineer A treated as an absolute bar to external disclosure.
option1: Notify the appropriate regulatory or public authorities of the disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations, invoking the Section II.1.c exception clause that releases engineers from confidentiality obligations when public danger is present, and inform the client in advance that this disclosure is required by the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation.
option2: Document the electrical and mechanical violations in the confidential structural report delivered to the client, treating the confidentiality agreement and Section III.4's protection of client-transmitted information as a complete bar to external disclosure, on the grounds that the violations were client-confided rather than independently discovered and fall outside Engineer A's structural scope of work.
option3: Formally demand in writing that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical violations before proceeding with the sale, and if the client refuses, withdraw from the engagement and decline to deliver the structural report — stopping short of notifying public authorities on the grounds that the confidentiality agreement and domain-competence limitations constrain the reporting duty, while avoiding passive acquiescence to the client's 'as is' directive.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: After the client refuses remediation, should Engineer A escalate by formally documenting objection and notifying occupants or public authorities, withdraw from the project, or treat the verbal warning as sufficient discharge of the safety obligation and proceed with delivering the confidential report?
focus: Engineer A, after verbally warning the client of the danger posed by the electrical and mechanical violations and receiving no remedial commitment, must decide whether to passively acquiesce to the client's 'as is' sale directive — treating the verbal warning as a terminal act of compliance — or to escalate through formal dissent, project withdrawal, or direct notification of building occupants. This decision point captures the independent ethical dimension of passive acquiescence under BER Case 84-5 and the question of whether the paramount safety obligation requires Engineer A to consider notification channels beyond regulatory authorities, including the occupants most immediately exposed to the hazard.
option1: After the client refuses remediation, formally document the objection in writing, notify the appropriate public regulatory authorities of the known code violations invoking the Section II.1.c safety exception, and consider direct notification to the building's occupants as an independent channel required by the paramount safety obligation — then withdraw from the engagement if the client objects to these disclosures.
option2: Formally document the objection to the client's 'as is' directive in writing and withdraw from the engagement, declining to deliver the structural report, on the grounds that the scope-of-work and domain-competence limitations constrain Engineer A's authority to demand remediation of electrical and mechanical systems — while stopping short of notifying public authorities or occupants on the basis that the confidentiality agreement and Section III.4 continue to bind after withdrawal.
option3: Treat the verbal warning to the client as a complete discharge of the safety notification duty, note the violations briefly in the confidential structural report to create a written record of awareness, and deliver the report to the client — relying on the faithful agent obligation under Section II.4, the confidentiality agreement, and the domain-competence limitation to justify taking no further escalatory action after the client's refusal.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Declining to Report Violations Externally
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Structural Engineer in private practice
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's inaction would leave the dangerous conditions unaddressed indefinitely
foreseen unintended effects: Occupants of the building would remain unaware of and unprotected from known electrical and mechanical safety hazards
foreseen unintended effects: The building could be sold to a new owner without disclosure of known code violations
fulfills obligation text: Contractual confidentiality obligation under the terms of engagement
fulfills obligation text: Non-disclosure obligation to client (Section III.4)
guided by principle text: Engineer's duty as protector of public welfare, not merely faithful agent to client
guided by principle text: Non-disclosure of confidential client information
guided by principle text: Professional courage to escalate when safety is at stake
guided by principle text: Public health and safety as paramount professional obligation
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Honor the confidentiality agreement with the client and avoid unauthorized disclosure of client business affairs, thereby fulfilling the contractual and Section III.4 obligation
requires capability text: Ability to withdraw from an engagement when ethical obligations cannot be met
requires capability text: Ethical judgment regarding the interaction of competing Code provisions
requires capability text: Knowledge of appropriate regulatory authorities for building safety violations
requires capability text: Professional courage to escalate safety concerns against client wishes
temporal marker: At report completion and conclusion of engagement
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation text: Obligation not to passively 'go along' when safety of the public is endangered (Case 84-5 reasoning applied in Discussion)
violates obligation text: Obligation to notify appropriate authority when professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where public safety is endangered (Section II.1.c, as interpreted in Discussion referencing Case 84-5)
violates obligation text: Obligation to use the Section II.1.c exception permitting disclosure when required by the Code, given that Section I.1 paramountcy of safety constituted such a Code-based requirement
violates obligation text: Paramount obligation to hold public health and safety above all other considerations (Section I.1)
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A made the explicit decision not to report the known electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party, regulatory authority, or public safety body, citing the confidentiality agreement as the governing constraint. This decision was the culminating professional choice that the Discussion identifies as the primary ethical failure.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Declining to Report Violations Externally → Occupants Remain Exposed to Hazard
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Because neither Engineer A nor the client reports the electrical and mechanical code violations to authorities, occupants remain exposed to hazard. Engineer A's explicit decision not to report is a direct and proximate cause of this continued exposure
cause: Declining to Report Violations Externally
counterfactual: Had Engineer A reported the violations to the appropriate authority, regulatory intervention would likely have been triggered, remediation required, and occupant exposure reduced or eliminated
effect: Occupants Remain Exposed to Hazard
necessary factors: Absence of any other party with knowledge who could have reported
necessary factors: Client's parallel failure to self-report
necessary factors: Engineer A's knowledge of the violations and their danger to occupants
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional decision to refrain from external reporting
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Engineer A's non-reporting + client's non-reporting + no independent discovery by authorities = sufficient to sustain ongoing occupant exposure
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Documenting Conversation in Report
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Structural Engineer in private practice
foreseen unintended effects: The brief mention could appear to be a formalistic gesture rather than a substantive safety response
foreseen unintended effects: The confidential report would not be seen by regulators, future occupants, or the building buyer unless disclosed by the client
foreseen unintended effects: The notation, being confined to a confidential report, would not alert authorities or protect occupants
fulfills obligation text: Partial documentation of known safety concern within the professional report
fulfills obligation text: Transparency with client by acknowledging the conversation in writing
guided by principle text: Honesty and completeness in professional reports
guided by principle text: Professional accountability for known safety conditions
guided by principle text: Public health and safety as paramount obligation
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Create a written record of the safety concern within the bounds of the confidential report, potentially to document that Engineer A had acknowledged the issue without violating the confidentiality agreement
requires capability text: Ethical judgment regarding scope and adequacy of safety disclosures in reports
requires capability text: Knowledge of Code provisions governing confidentiality exceptions
requires capability text: Professional report writing
temporal marker: At report completion, after all field work and client conversations concluded
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Obligation not to merely 'go along' when public safety is at stake (Case 84-5 reasoning applied in Discussion)
violates obligation text: Obligation to notify appropriate authority when safety is endangered and professional judgment is overruled (Section II.1.c as interpreted by Discussion)
violates obligation text: Paramount obligation to protect public health and safety (Section I.1), a confidential notation does not discharge the duty to notify appropriate authorities of conditions endangering occupants
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A included a brief mention of his conversation with the client about the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in the confidential structural report, rather than omitting the matter entirely or reporting it to external authorities. This written notation was the only formal record of the known safety violations.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Documenting Conversation in Report → Engineer A's Conduct Retrospectively Condemned
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A included a brief mention of his conversation with the client about the electrical and mechanical violations in the confidential report: this documentation, while creating a record, simultaneously evidenced that Engineer A knew of the hazard and chose not to act beyond minimal measures, forming a basis for retrospective condemnation
cause: Documenting Conversation in Report
counterfactual: Had Engineer A not documented the conversation, the evidentiary basis for establishing his knowledge would be weaker, though the ethical failure would remain; the documentation made the knowledge gap between awareness and action undeniable
effect: Engineer A's Conduct Retrospectively Condemned
necessary factors: Engineer A's decision to document the conversation rather than omit it entirely
necessary factors: The absence of any documented external reporting action in the same record
necessary factors: The documented content demonstrating Engineer A's awareness of the violations
necessary factors: The report's availability for retrospective ethical review
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Documentation of known hazard + absence of documented external reporting action + retrospective ethical review = sufficient to establish basis for condemnation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Electrical and Mechanical Violations Disclosed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Hazard_Disclosure_Obligation
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Section_I_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A transitions from routine assessment mode to a situation involving known occupant danger; the ethical stakes of the engagement fundamentally escalate; confidentiality can no longer be treated as absolute
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Severity_Of_Violations
creates obligation: Consider_Reporting_To_Authorities
creates obligation: Consider_Withdrawing_From_Engagement
creates obligation: Warn_Client_Of_Danger
emergency status: high
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: During engagement, after or alongside structural assessment
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: high
comment: During the engagement, the client discloses to Engineer A the existence of electrical and mechanical code violations in the building that pose a danger to its occupants, introducing a safety hazard into the professional relationship.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Electrical and Mechanical Violations Disclosed → Verbally Warning Client of Danger
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Upon learning from the client that the building contained electrical and mechanical code deficiencies, Engineer A verbally warned the client of the danger, the disclosure event directly triggering Engineer A's oral response
cause: Electrical and Mechanical Violations Disclosed
counterfactual: Without the client's disclosure, Engineer A would have had no knowledge of the violations and no basis to issue even a verbal warning; the warning was entirely contingent on the disclosure event
effect: Verbally Warning Client of Danger
necessary factors: Client's act of disclosing the violations to Engineer A
necessary factors: Engineer A's awareness that the violations posed danger to occupants
necessary factors: Engineer A's presence in an active professional engagement with the client
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer A
sufficient factors: Disclosure of violations + Engineer A's professional awareness of danger = sufficient to prompt a verbal warning, though insufficient to satisfy full professional duty
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer-Public-Safety-Escalation-Standard
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
usedby: Engineer A when evaluating whether client's refusal to remediate triggers a duty to notify authorities
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to escalate known safety hazards to regulatory authorities or the public when the client declines to take remedial action prior to sale of the occupied building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.165601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer-Safety-Recommendation-Rejection-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerSafetyRecommendationRejectionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Standard Governing Engineer Conduct When Client Rejects Safety Recommendation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
sourcetext: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
textreferences: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
textreferences: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: The Board applies the principle from Case 84-5 that an engineer who 'goes along' with a client's rejection of a safety-protective measure without insisting or withdrawing acts unethically; this standard is applied by analogy to Engineer A's failure to escalate the public safety concern
version: As applied in this BER case via Case 84-5 analogy
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.158510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Agent-Trustee Confidentiality Rationale Non-Absolutism
type: Agent-TrusteeConfidentialityRationaleNon-AbsolutismConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's role as agent/trustee of client information did not justify suppressing safety-critical information about code violations in an occupied building
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Agent-Trustee Confidentiality Rationale Non-Absolutism Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from invoking the agent/trustee rationale for confidentiality — that engineers are privy to sensitive client business affairs and must maintain confidentiality — as a basis for treating the confidentiality obligation as absolute and overriding the paramount public safety obligation to notify appropriate authorities of the electrical and mechanical code violations.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section III.4.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.
sourcetext: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients. They are privy to a great deal of information and background concerning the business affairs of their client.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement and post-client-override period
textreferences: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients. They are privy to a great deal of information and background concerning the business affairs of their client.
textreferences: We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.149296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Appropriate Authority Notification Post-Client-Safety-Override Failure
type: Post-Client-OverridePublicSafetyRegulatoryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's professional judgment on safety was effectively overruled by the client's 'as is' sale declaration; Engineer A failed to notify appropriate public authorities
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate public authority — such as the building code official, fire marshal, or housing authority — of the electrical and mechanical code violations after the client overrode Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation by declaring the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation; Engineer A failed to discharge this obligation by proceeding without escalation.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; BER Case 84-5
sourcetext: We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
temporalscope: After the client declared 'as is' sale with no remediation intent
textreferences: We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.181671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A As-Is Sale Business Decision Safety Escalation Non-Override
type: As-IsSaleBusinessDecisionSafetyEscalationNon-OverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The client explicitly stated the building was being sold 'as is' with no remediation planned; Engineer A treated this commercial directive as a factor supporting non-disclosure of the safety violations, which was ethically impermissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: As-Is Sale Business Decision Safety Escalation Non-Override Constraint
constraintstatement: The client's business decision to sell the apartment building 'as is' without remediation did not override or extinguish Engineer A's obligation to report the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities; the 'as is' sale designation was a commercial arrangement between buyer and seller that did not bind Engineer A's independent professional safety obligations.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement, from the point the client communicated the 'as is' sale intent
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.171004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A As-Is Sale Directive Safety Non-Override Recognition
type: As-IsSaleBusinessDirectiveSafetyReportingNon-OverrideSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: As-Is Sale Business Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the client's 'as is' sale directive — the business decision not to remediate prior to sale — did not override his independent professional obligation to report known electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to building occupants.
casecontext: The client explicitly stated the building would be sold 'as is' with no remedial action; Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party, apparently treating the client's business decision as overriding his safety reporting obligation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A treated the client's 'as is' sale directive as a justification for not reporting safety violations to public authorities — demonstrating failure to exercise this capability
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.164712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Precedent Cross-Domain Application
type: BERCase84-5Going-AlongPrecedentCross-DomainSafetyApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Board applied Case 84-5 going-along principle by analogy to Engineer A's failure to insist on remediation or withdraw after client declared 'as is' sale
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Precedent Cross-Domain Safety Application Constraint
constraintstatement: The Board applied the going-along prohibition from BER Case 84-5 — originally arising in a construction-phase project representative context — by analogy to Engineer A's situation involving client-confided out-of-scope safety violations in an occupied building, establishing that the underlying ethical principle transcends the specific factual context of Case 84-5 and applies wherever an engineer identifies a genuine public safety concern and the client refuses to act.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 84-5; NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
sourcetext: We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
temporalscope: Throughout the Board's ethical analysis of Engineer A's conduct
textreferences: Case 84-5 involved a client who planned a project and hired an engineer to furnish complete engineering services for the project.
textreferences: We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.181373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Principle Cross-Context Analogical Application Failure
type: Cross-CaseEthicalPrecedentAnalogicalTransferCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Cross-Case Ethical Precedent Analogical Transfer Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to apply the BER Case 84-5 'going along' principle to his own situation — specifically, the principle that an engineer who has genuine safety concerns must insist on corrective action or withdraw rather than proceeding without dissent after a client safety refusal
casecontext: Engineer A's continuation of engagement after client safety refusal, analogous to the Case 84-5 engineer who proceeded without insisting on a full-time on-site project representative
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Proceeding with the structural assessment engagement after the client's 'as is' directive without insisting on remediation or withdrawing, mirroring the ethical violation identified in Case 84-5
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case
textreferences: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client
textreferences: Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further
textreferences: We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.178809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A BER Dual-Precedent Confidentiality Safety Synthesis
type: BERDual-PrecedentConfidentiality-SafetyFactualDistinctionSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Confidentiality-Safety Factual Distinction Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to retrieve and synthesize relevant BER precedent cases involving the confidentiality-versus-public-safety dilemma, identify the material factual distinctions between those precedents and his situation (including the presence of a formal confidentiality agreement, client-disclosed rather than incidentally observed violations, and the occupied building context), and apply that synthesis to reach a calibrated ethical conclusion about his reporting obligations.
casecontext: The case involves a formal confidentiality agreement, client-disclosed (not incidentally observed) code violations, an occupied building, and a client declining remediation — factual elements requiring careful precedent triangulation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's failure to correctly apply precedent-based reasoning to determine that his confidentiality agreement did not override his safety reporting obligation in the occupied building context
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.149566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Brief Report Mention Insufficiency Public Authority Safety Notification
type: BriefReportMentionInsufficiencyforPublicAuthoritySafetyNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made only a brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report, which was not transmitted to any public authority, and took no further action to notify regulatory bodies.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.98
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies within his confidential structural report did not discharge his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of the safety violations; a mention in a confidential document not transmitted to public authorities cannot substitute for direct notification to an authority with jurisdiction to act.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.c; BER Case 89-7
sourcetext: in his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
temporalscope: At the time of report preparation and submission to the client
textreferences: in his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.151671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Brief Report Mention Insufficiency Recognition
type: ConfidentialReportBriefMentionInsufficiencyforPublicAuthoritySafetyNotificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that his brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies within his confidential structural report did not satisfy the independent professional obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of those violations.
casecontext: Engineer A included a brief mention of his conversation with the client about the deficiencies in his confidential structural report, treating this as sufficient discharge of his professional obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A made only a brief mention of the code violations in his confidential report and took no further action to notify public authorities — demonstrating failure to exercise this capability
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: in his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
textreferences: in his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.164017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client-Confided Out-of-Scope Safety Violation Confidentiality Weight Calibration
type: Client-ConfidedOut-of-ScopeSafetyViolationConfidentialityWeightConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The client affirmatively confided the code violations to Engineer A under a confidential engagement; this created a stronger confidentiality expectation than independently observed violations, but the occupied-building occupant injury risk ultimately triggered the safety escalation obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client-Confided Out-of-Scope Safety Violation Confidentiality Weight Constraint
constraintstatement: The client-confided nature of the electrical and mechanical code violations — as opposed to violations independently observed by Engineer A — heightened the confidentiality weight attached to the information, warranting measured deliberation before escalation; however, this heightened confidentiality weight did not eliminate the escalation obligation when the violations posed a genuine risk of injury to current occupants of the occupied building.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c, Section III.4; BER Cases 82-2, 89-7
sourcetext: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
temporalscope: From the point of client disclosure through the completion of the engagement
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client-Directed Ethical Violation Non-Compliance As-Is Sale Suppression
type: Client-DirectedEthicalViolationNon-ComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The client's 'as is' directive and confidentiality agreement together functioned as an implicit instruction to suppress safety violation disclosure; Engineer A complied with this implicit instruction by not reporting to any third party.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client-Directed Ethical Violation Non-Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from complying with the client's implicit instruction — embedded in the 'as is' sale directive and the confidentiality agreement — to suppress disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities; the client's commercial and confidentiality instructions did not override Engineer A's independent ethical obligation to protect occupant safety.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client-Disclosed Safety Hazard Out-of-Scope Reporting
type: Out-of-DisciplineSafetyCodeViolationReportingDutyActivationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client during the course of professional services — activated a professional duty to report those violations to appropriate public authorities, notwithstanding that the violations fell outside his structural engineering discipline and contracted scope of work.
casecontext: Engineer A, a structural engineer, received client-disclosed information about electrical and mechanical code violations; he recognized the injury potential but treated his disciplinary and contractual limitations as excusing non-reporting
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A recognized the injury risk but did not report to public authorities — demonstrating partial awareness but failure to fully activate and execute the reporting duty
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.149776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was engaged because the client transmitted confidential information about electrical and mechanical code violations to him during professional service delivery — distinguishing this from Case 82-2 where no such transmission occurred — but failed to proceed correctly to assess the safety exception
casecontext: Client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A during structural assessment of occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The BER's analysis confirms that Section III.4 was engaged by the client's transmission of information, and Engineer A's confidential report mention suggests he recognized the confidentiality obligation, but he failed to apply the exception clause
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
textreferences: Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case
textreferences: under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.178574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client Confidentiality Reliance Factor Escalation Modulation Client-Confided Violations
type: ClientConfidentialityRelianceFactorEscalationModulationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The client affirmatively confided the electrical and mechanical deficiencies to Engineer A during the confidential structural engagement; this client-confided status modulated but did not eliminate Engineer A's escalation obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Confidentiality Reliance Factor Escalation Modulation Constraint
constraintstatement: The fact that the electrical and mechanical code violations were client-confided — rather than independently observed by Engineer A — created a stronger basis for measured deliberation before escalation, but did not eliminate the escalation obligation when the violations posed a genuine risk of injury to current building occupants; Engineer A could not treat the client-confided nature of the information as a complete bar to public authority notification.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c, Section III.4; BER Case 89-7; BER Case 82-2
sourcetext: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
temporalscope: From the point of client disclosure through the completion of the engagement
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.154124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Failure
type: ClientInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalSafetyEnforcementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or alternatively to withdraw from the project — instead proceeding without dissent after the client's 'as is' sale directive
casecontext: Engineer A's failure to insist on corrective action or withdraw after client's 'as is' sale directive regarding electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Continuing to work on the structural assessment without insisting on remediation or withdrawing from the engagement after the client's refusal to address known safety code violations
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
textreferences: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
textreferences: We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.179703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client Insistence or Withdrawal Safety Enforcement
type: ClientInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalSafetyEnforcementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or alternatively to withdraw from the project — recognizing that the NSPE Code's 'paramount' safety obligation required affirmative action beyond merely informing the client.
casecontext: After informing the client of the injury risk from electrical and mechanical violations, Engineer A continued and completed the structural engagement without insisting on corrective action or withdrawing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A informed the client of the injury risk but did not insist on remediation or withdraw from the project — demonstrating the capability was not adequately exercised
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.164442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Code No-Direct-Exception Non-Absolute Interpretation
type: CodeProvisionNo-Direct-ExceptionNon-AbsoluteInterpretationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 had no explicit exception, but the Board held that no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Code Provision No-Direct-Exception Non-Absolute Interpretation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from treating Section III.4's absence of an explicit exception clause as rendering the confidentiality obligation absolute — the Board established that the absence of a direct exception in Section III.4 does not mean the provision is immune from being qualified by other Code provisions, including Section II.1.c.'s exception clause and Section I.1.'s paramount safety language.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section I.1.
sourcetext: That provision makes no specific exception to the language. For example, the drafters of the Code could have provided exceptional circumstances where such confidential information could be disclosed by the engineer; however no such provisions have been included.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding whether to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations
textreferences: That provision makes no specific exception to the language. For example, the drafters of the Code could have provided exceptional circumstances where such confidential information could be disclosed by the engineer; however no such provisions have been included.
textreferences: While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.180663
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Code Section Non-Vacuum Cross-Provision Integrated Reading Failure
type: CodeSectionNon-VacuumCross-ProvisionIntegratedReadingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Code Section Non-Vacuum Cross-Provision Integrated Reading Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to read Section III.4's confidentiality provision in conjunction with Section I.1's paramount safety language and Section II.1.c's exception clause, instead treating confidentiality as an isolated and absolute obligation
casecontext: Engineer A retained under confidentiality agreement to assess 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; Engineer A mentioned violations briefly in confidential report but did not escalate to public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to integrate the three operative NSPE Code provisions into a unified normative framework, resulting in treatment of confidentiality as an absolute bar to safety reporting
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code
textreferences: Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
textreferences: no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.177744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Confidentiality Safety Provision Balancing
type: CompetingConfidentiality-SafetyCodeProvisionContextualBalancingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize the conflict between the NSPE Code's confidentiality provision (Section III.4) and the paramount public welfare obligation (Section II.1), and to correctly resolve that conflict by determining that the 'paramount' safety obligation superseded the confidentiality duty when known code violations posed injury risk to occupied building tenants.
casecontext: Engineer A faced a direct conflict between his contractual confidentiality obligation and his professional duty to report known safety code violations; he resolved the conflict in favor of confidentiality rather than safety
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A treated the confidentiality agreement as overriding his safety reporting obligation — demonstrating failure to correctly balance the competing code provisions
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.171910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Comprehensive Code Integration Confidentiality-Safety Conflict
type: ComprehensiveCodeIntegrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A read Section III.4. in isolation rather than in conjunction with the full Code framework, leading to an absolutist confidentiality interpretation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Comprehensive Code Integration Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to integrate all applicable Code provisions — Section III.4. (confidentiality), Section II.1.c. (exception clause), Section I.1. (paramount safety), and Section II.1.a. (primary safety obligation) — into a unified resolution of the confidentiality-safety conflict, rather than treating Section III.4. as automatically superseding the safety provisions.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
sourcetext: As we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding how to respond to the client's disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations
textreferences: As we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
textreferences: We believe under the facts, Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Client Information Electrical Mechanical Violation Disclosure Boundary
type: ConfidentialClientInformationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The confidentiality agreement established a genuine constraint on Engineer A's disclosure of client information, but that constraint was defeasible in the face of the paramount public safety obligation when the client-confided violations posed a risk of occupant injury.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidential Client Information Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's ability to disclose the client-confided electrical and mechanical code violation information to third parties was constrained by the confidentiality agreement, but that constraint was bounded by the overriding obligation to disclose the safety violations to regulatory authorities when the client refused to act and occupants remained at risk.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c, Section III.4; contractual confidentiality agreement
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement and upon completion of the structural report
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.171692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency Non-Recognition
type: ConfidentialReportBriefMentionInsufficiencyforPublicAuthoritySafetyNotificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that his brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of those violations
casecontext: Engineer A included brief mention of electrical and mechanical deficiencies in confidential structural report but did not separately notify public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Treating the brief mention in the confidential report as sufficient discharge of safety reporting obligations, without separately notifying building code officials, fire marshals, or other appropriate public authorities
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities
textreferences: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.179980
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Bar Safety Code Violation Reporting
type: ConfidentialityAgreementNon-BartoPublicAuthoritySafetyCodeViolationReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was retained under a confidential structural engagement for a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'; the client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations that could injure occupants; Engineer A did not report to any third party citing the confidentiality agreement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Bar to Public Authority Safety Code Violation Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's contractual confidentiality agreement with the building owner did not bar him from reporting the known electrical and mechanical code violations — which could cause injury to occupants — to appropriate public authorities; the NSPE Code's paramount public safety obligation supersedes the contractual confidentiality term.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c; BER Case 89-7
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement and upon completion of the structural report
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.151440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse Safety Reporting Self-Recognition
type: ConfidentialityAgreementScopeLimitationforImminentStructuralSafetyDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidentiality Agreement Scope Limitation for Imminent Structural Safety Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not extend to bar disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to building occupants, and that the NSPE Code's 'paramount' safety obligation superseded the contractual confidentiality duty.
casecontext: Engineer A operated under a confidentiality agreement requiring the structural report to remain confidential; he used this agreement as justification for not reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's failure to report safety violations to any third party despite the confidentiality agreement — demonstrating the capability was not adequately exercised
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.163776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Scope Limitation for Safety Disclosure Non-Recognition
type: ConfidentialityAgreementScopeLimitationforImminentStructuralSafetyDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidentiality Agreement Scope Limitation for Imminent Structural Safety Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not extend to bar disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to building occupants, and that the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation superseded the confidentiality agreement in this context
casecontext: Engineer A retained under confidentiality agreement; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; Engineer A failed to escalate to public authorities citing confidentiality
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Treating the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not excuse him from reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not excuse him from reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
textreferences: Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.179240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Applicability Public Danger Assessment
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosureAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to assess whether the confidentiality obligation arising from his agreement with the client barred disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to regulatory authorities, and to correctly determine that confidentiality does not apply when the disclosure involves apparent danger to the public — specifically, injury risk to occupants of the occupied apartment building.
casecontext: Engineer A operated under a formal confidentiality agreement and used it as justification for not reporting known safety code violations to any third party, including public regulatory authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A incorrectly determined that the confidentiality agreement barred disclosure to public authorities — failing to correctly apply the public danger exception to confidentiality obligations
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.172347
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety-Critical Regulatory Disclosure
type: ConfidentialityNon-BartoSafety-CriticalRegulatoryDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A treated the confidentiality agreement as a bar to disclosure of safety-critical information about code violations in an occupied building
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety-Critical Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4. and the confidentiality agreement with the client did not bar disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate regulatory or public authorities — the confidentiality obligation was defeasible in the face of the paramount public safety duty and the Section II.1.c. exception clause.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section III.4.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section I.1.
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A has an ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which he acquires during the course of providing professional services to the client unless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding whether to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations
textreferences: Importantly, however, this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A has an ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which he acquires during the course of providing professional services to the client unless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.182599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety
type: ConfidentialityPre-emptionbyPublicSafetyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the confidentiality obligation arising from his agreement with the client was pre-empted by the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare when the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations posed injury risk to the occupants of the occupied apartment building.
casecontext: Engineer A operated under a formal confidentiality agreement while possessing knowledge of safety code violations posing injury risk to occupied building tenants; he prioritized confidentiality over public safety
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A treated the confidentiality agreement as overriding his safety reporting obligation — failing to recognize that the public safety obligation pre-empted the confidentiality duty in this context
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.149961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Dual NSPE Code Provision Simultaneous Obligation Recognition Failure
type: DualNSPECodeProvisionSimultaneousObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Dual NSPE Code Provision Simultaneous Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that the factual situation simultaneously triggered Section III.4's confidentiality obligation and Section I.1's paramount safety obligation, treating the confidentiality provision as wholly displacing the safety obligation rather than recognizing both as operative and requiring contextual balancing
casecontext: Engineer A's failure to recognize the simultaneous operation of confidentiality and paramount safety obligations when client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Treating confidentiality as an absolute bar to safety reporting rather than recognizing both provisions as simultaneously operative and requiring resolution through the Section II.1.c exception clause
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety
textreferences: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.148967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Role Confidentiality Absolutism Misapplication
type: FaithfulAgentRoleConfidentialityAbsolutismMisapplicationNon-AcquiescenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Role Confidentiality Absolutism Misapplication Non-Acquiescence Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that invoking the faithful agent and trustee role to justify treating the confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive as absolute bars to safety reporting constituted a misapplication of that role, which is itself bounded by the paramount public safety obligation
casecontext: Engineer A's reliance on confidentiality agreement and faithful agent role to justify non-disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Treating the confidentiality agreement and client's business directive as sufficient justification for non-escalation of known safety code violations to public authorities
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients
textreferences: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients
textreferences: The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.177466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Going-Along Without Dissent Independent Ethical Violation
type: PassiveSafetyAcquiescenceIndependentEthicalViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A continued work on behalf of the client without dissent, comment, insistence on remediation, or withdrawal from the project after learning of the client's non-remediation intent
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A violated the prohibition on going along without dissent by proceeding with the structural assessment engagement after the client declared the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation of the electrical and mechanical code violations — Engineer A neither insisted on corrective action nor withdrew from the project, constituting an independent ethical violation under the going-along prohibition established in BER Case 84-5.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.; BER Case 84-5
sourcetext: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
temporalscope: After the client declared 'as is' sale with no remediation intent
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
textreferences: The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.181131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Going-Along Without Dissent Independent Ethical Violation Self-Recognition Failure
type: PassiveAcquiescenceEthicalInsufficiencySelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Passive Acquiescence Ethical Insufficiency Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that proceeding with the structural assessment engagement after the client's 'as is' sale directive — without dissent, comment, or escalation — constituted an independent ethical violation, not merely an insufficient response
casecontext: Engineer A's passive continuation of engagement after client's refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Continuing to work on the structural assessment after the client declared the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation of known electrical and mechanical code violations, without insisting on corrective action or withdrawing
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client
textreferences: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client
textreferences: His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code
textreferences: Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.178330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Exception Clause Confidentiality Release
type: NSPECodeSectionII.1.c.SafetyExceptionClauseConfidentialityOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A failed to apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause to recognize that the Code's paramount safety obligation released him from the confidentiality obligation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Safety Exception Clause Confidentiality Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by Section II.1.c.'s exception clause — which releases the engineer from the confidentiality obligation when disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code — to recognize that the paramount safety obligation under Section I.1. and Section II.1.a. constituted a Code-authorized basis for disclosing the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement with the client.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
sourcetext: Importantly, however, this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding whether to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities
textreferences: Importantly, however, this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code.
textreferences: In other words if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.181891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE Code Section II.1.c Exception Clause Non-Activation Failure
type: NSPECodeSectionII.1.c.PublicSafetyExceptionClauseActivationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Public Safety Exception Clause Activation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize and apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, which released him from the confidentiality obligation because the Code itself — through Section I.1.'s paramount safety language — authorized and required disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
casecontext: Engineer A's failure to apply the Section II.1.c exception clause to release the confidentiality obligation when the Code's paramount safety provisions required disclosure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Non-escalation to public authorities despite the Code's exception clause being activated by the known safety code violations in an occupied building
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
textreferences: if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality
textreferences: this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.179018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE Code Section II.1.c Safety Exception Clause Confidentiality Override
type: NSPECodeSectionII.1.c.SafetyExceptionClauseConfidentialityOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 was subject to the Section II.1.c exception permitting disclosure when public health and safety is endangered; Engineer A failed to apply this exception when he declined to report the violations to any third party.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Safety Exception Clause Confidentiality Override Constraint
constraintstatement: NSPE Code Section II.1.c created an explicit code-authorized exception to Engineer A's general confidentiality obligation, permitting and requiring disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities when those violations endangered the health and safety of building occupants — Engineer A could not treat the general confidentiality obligation as absolute when the Section II.1.c exception conditions were met.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c; BER Cases 85-4, 87-2
sourcetext: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's recognition that the code violations could cause injury to occupants
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.170614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client As-Is Sale Economic Override Safety
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientEconomicOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The client's refusal to remediate was economically motivated (preserving sale proceeds by avoiding remediation costs); Engineer A continued the engagement without insisting on remediation or escalating, analogous to the BER Case 84-5 engineer who 'went along' with a client's safety-protective measure rejection.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from acquiescing to the client's economically motivated refusal to remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations — the client's decision not to spend money on remediation prior to sale was an economic override of safety that Engineer A could not accept without either insisting on remediation, withdrawing from the project, or escalating to public authorities.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a; BER Case 84-5
sourcetext: he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
temporalscope: From the point the client communicated the 'as is' no-remediation intent
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.171428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Safety Refusal
type: Non-AcquiescencetoClientEconomicOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client's business decision to sell 'as is' was an economic override of Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation; Engineer A acquiesced without dissent
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from acquiescing to the client's economic decision to sell the building 'as is' without remediation — the client's business decision not to remediate prior to sale did not override Engineer A's obligation to insist on corrective action or withdraw from the project, as established by the BER Case 84-5 precedent applied by analogy.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.; BER Case 84-5
sourcetext: After reviewing the complete project plans and costs, the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired.
temporalscope: After the client declared 'as is' sale with no remediation intent
textreferences: After reviewing the complete project plans and costs, the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired.
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.182789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Expert Domain Threshold Safety Identification Electrical Mechanical
type: Non-ExpertDomainThresholdSafetyIdentificationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is a structural engineer, not an electrical or mechanical engineer, but recognized that the client-disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to occupants — his non-expert status was not a valid basis for declining to escalate the known safety concern.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Expert Domain Threshold Safety Identification Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, while not an electrical or mechanical engineer, was nonetheless competent and professionally obligated to identify and escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations as a safety concern apparent from general engineering awareness — his non-expert status appropriately limited the depth of technical analysis he could provide but did not excuse him from raising and escalating the safety concern.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a; general engineering competence standards
sourcetext: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
temporalscope: Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations from the client
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.153902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Occupied Residential Building Electrical Mechanical Code Violation Occupant Injury Escalation
type: OccupiedResidentialBuildingElectrical-MechanicalCodeViolationOccupantInjuryEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The apartment building was actively occupied at the time of the engagement; the electrical and mechanical code violations were known to pose an injury risk to current occupants; Engineer A did not escalate to any public authority.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Occupied Residential Building Electrical-Mechanical Code Violation Occupant Injury Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations in the occupied 60-year-old apartment building to appropriate public authorities because those violations posed a genuine risk of injury to current occupants — the combination of a confidentiality agreement, an out-of-scope discipline, and the client's 'as is' sale directive did not collectively discharge this safety escalation obligation.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c; applicable building, electrical, and mechanical codes and standards
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building
temporalscope: From the point of learning of the violations through the completion of the engagement and beyond
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.171216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Discipline Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Non-Recognition
type: Out-of-DisciplineSafetyCodeViolationReportingDutyActivationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that the client's direct disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations — even though outside his structural engineering expertise — activated a professional duty to report those violations to appropriate public authorities, independent of his disciplinary credentials in those areas
casecontext: Engineer A (structural engineer) received client disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building; failed to report to public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Non-escalation of client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities, apparently treating out-of-discipline nature of violations as limiting his reporting obligation
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client — to appropriate public authorities notwithstanding that the information came from the client rather than from his own technical investigation
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client — to appropriate public authorities notwithstanding that the information came from the client rather than from his own technical investigation
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.148818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Discipline Injury Risk Recognition
type: Out-of-DisciplineSafetyCodeViolationReportingDutyActivationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations — outside his structural engineering discipline — activated a professional duty to report those violations to appropriate public authorities, notwithstanding his lack of credentials in those disciplines.
casecontext: Engineer A, a structural engineer, was informed by the client of electrical and mechanical code violations in a 60-year-old occupied apartment building; he recognized the injury risk but did not report to public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that electrical and mechanical deficiencies disclosed by the client could cause injury to building occupants, and informing the client of this — though Engineer A failed to fully exercise the reporting duty by not notifying public authorities
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.163533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Confidentiality Subordination
type: ParamountSafetyNormativeHierarchyConfidentialitySubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A treated confidentiality as effectively overriding the paramount safety obligation by proceeding without dissent or escalation after the client declared 'as is' sale
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Confidentiality Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' in Section I.1. from treating the confidentiality obligation under Section III.4. as co-equal with or superior to the public safety obligation — the word 'paramount' established a normative hierarchy requiring Engineer A to subordinate confidentiality to public safety when the electrical and mechanical code violations posed a genuine risk of injury to building occupants.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section III.4.
sourcetext: Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding whether to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities
textreferences: Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
textreferences: We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence. The Code of Ethics is clear on this point.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.180867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Supremacy Application Failure
type: ParamountSafetyNormativeHierarchySupremacyApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Supremacy Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize and apply the normative supremacy of the 'paramount' public safety obligation over the confidentiality obligation, treating both as equivalent competing duties rather than recognizing the hierarchical priority established by the Code's use of 'paramount'
casecontext: Engineer A's failure to escalate known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities despite client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Proceeding with the engagement and making only a brief confidential report mention rather than escalating to public authorities, indicating failure to apply the safety supremacy hierarchy
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety
textreferences: Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety
textreferences: we further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.177995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure Recognition
type: PassiveAcquiescenceEthicalInsufficiencySelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Passive Acquiescence Ethical Insufficiency Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that making only a brief mention of the code violations in a confidential report — without insisting on corrective action or withdrawing from the engagement — constituted passive acquiescence that was an independent ethical failure separate from the failure to report to public authorities.
casecontext: Engineer A informed the client of the injury risk but did not insist on corrective action or withdraw from the project, instead completing the structural report with only a brief mention of the violations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A completed the structural engagement without insisting on remediation of the electrical and mechanical violations, making only a brief mention in the confidential report — demonstrating failure to exercise this capability
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.164239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Failure Instance
type: Post-Client-OverrideRegulatoryEscalationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to assess whether the client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations required escalation to appropriate public authorities such as building code officials, fire marshals, or housing authorities
casecontext: After client declared building would be sold 'as is' without remediation, Engineer A continued engagement without escalating to public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Proceeding with the engagement without escalating to public authorities after the client's refusal to remediate known safety code violations
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
textreferences: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.179473
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Client-Refusal Regulatory Escalation Assessment
type: Post-Client-RefusalPublicSafetyAuthorityEscalationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Client-Refusal Public Safety Authority Escalation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to assess, after informing the client of the injury risk and receiving no remedial response (the client having explicitly declined any remediation), whether the residual public safety risk from the electrical and mechanical code violations was sufficient to trigger an obligation to escalate to appropriate public authorities.
casecontext: After informing the client of the injury risk, Engineer A received no remedial commitment from the client (who had already stated the building would be sold 'as is'); Engineer A then completed the engagement without regulatory escalation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A did not escalate to public authorities after the client declined remediation — failing to exercise the post-client-refusal escalation assessment capability
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.172750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Escalation After Client Override Failure
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to escalate the known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities — such as building code officials, fire marshals, or housing authorities — after the client's 'as is' sale directive effectively overruled Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation
casecontext: Engineer A's failure to notify appropriate public authorities after client's refusal to remediate known safety code violations in occupied apartment building
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Non-escalation to any public authority despite knowing of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to occupants of an occupied apartment building
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
textreferences: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.149109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Electrical Mechanical Violations
type: PublicSafetyParamountOverConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced a direct conflict between his contractual confidentiality obligation and his paramount duty to protect occupant safety; the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' to describe the public safety obligation signals its precedence over confidentiality in cases of genuine safety risk.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's paramount obligation to protect the health and safety of building occupants pre-empted his duty of confidentiality to the client regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations — he was prohibited from remaining silent about the known safety risks on the basis of the confidentiality agreement, and was required to notify appropriate public authorities.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.072763+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c; BER Cases 76-4, 90-5
sourcetext: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
temporalscope: From the point of learning of the code violations through the completion of the engagement and beyond
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.170820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Occupied Building
type: PublicSafetyParamountOverConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to the building owner conflicted with the paramount obligation to protect occupants from known electrical and mechanical code violations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's obligation to protect the public health and safety of the occupants of the 60-year-old apartment building — who were exposed to known electrical and mechanical code violations — took precedence over the confidentiality obligation under Section III.4., prohibiting Engineer A from treating the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to disclosure of the safety violations to appropriate public authorities.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section III.4.
sourcetext: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement and post-client-override period
textreferences: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
textreferences: We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.182240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Scope-of-Work Non-Shield Safety Disclosure Non-Recognition
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforSafetyDisclosureRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, and that the paramount duty to public safety overrides scope-of-work constraints when genuine safety risks are known
casecontext: Engineer A retained for structural assessment; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations outside structural scope; Engineer A failed to escalate out-of-scope violations to public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Treating the structural engineering scope of work as a limitation on the obligation to report out-of-discipline code violations to public authorities
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:24.270289+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.148639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Scope of Work Non-Shield Safety Disclosure Recognition
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ExcuseforSafetyDisclosureRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, even though those violations fell outside his contracted scope and disciplinary expertise.
casecontext: Engineer A was retained solely for structural integrity assessment; the electrical and mechanical violations were outside his contracted scope, but he was informed of them by the client and recognized their injury potential
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's failure to report out-of-scope electrical and mechanical violations to public authorities — treating his structural scope as limiting his safety disclosure obligations
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.172151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Full Engagement
type: SectionIII.4Client-TransmittedInformationConfidentialityEngagementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A retained for structural assessment of 60-year-old apartment building; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations during the engagement; client declared 'as is' sale with no remediation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Information Confidentiality Engagement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 was fully engaged because the client affirmatively transmitted information about the electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A during the course of the structural engagement — distinguishing this case from Case 82-2 where no client transmission occurred — but this full engagement did not render the confidentiality obligation absolute in the face of the Section II.1.c. exception and the paramount safety obligation.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:50:36.681794+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4; BER Case 82-2 (distinguishing); NSPE Code Section II.1.c.
sourcetext: Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
temporalscope: Throughout the structural engagement and post-engagement period
textreferences: In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer. However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case.
textreferences: Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.180432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Tenant Occupant Direct Notification Consideration
type: OccupiedBuildingTenantOccupantDirectSafetyNotificationConsiderationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Occupied Building Tenant Occupant Direct Safety Notification Consideration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to consider whether the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare required directly notifying the building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury — particularly given that the client had declined remediation and the building remained occupied.
casecontext: The 60-year-old apartment building was occupied; the client declined remediation; Engineer A recognized the injury risk to occupants but did not notify them directly or through public authorities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A did not notify building occupants of the safety violations — failing to consider or act on the direct notification pathway to the at-risk population
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:41:27.644464+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.172561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A informing client of danger before report writing
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A...informs the client [of the danger]... In his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
from entity text: Engineer A informing client of danger
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: report writing
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: report writing
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A's Conduct Retrospectively Condemned
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: NSPE_Disciplinary_Framework
activates constraint: Professional_Accountability_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A's conduct is formally evaluated and found deficient against professional standards; the case becomes a teaching instrument and potential basis for disciplinary review; the professional community is alerted to the ethical failure pattern
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Potential_Disciplinary_Review
creates obligation: Professional_Community_Learning_Obligation
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Post-engagement, in retrospective analysis
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: medium
comment: The Discussion section of the case analysis formally concludes that Engineer A failed his paramount obligation to public safety by not escalating the matter to authorities or refusing to continue the engagement, referencing prior NSPE cases as precedent.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.161179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A's engagement and report before building sale
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A is retained...prior to its sale... the client makes clear...he is not planning to take any remedial action...prior to its sale
from entity text: Engineer A's engagement and report
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: building sale
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: building sale
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

II.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

II.1.e.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

III.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Inspection-Discovered vs. Client-Disclosed Safety Information Distinction Active
type: Inspection-Discoveredvs.Client-DisclosedSafetyInformationDistinctionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment the client confides the deficiencies through Engineer A's ethical deliberation about reporting obligations
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems
stateclass: Inspection-Discovered vs. Client-Disclosed Safety Information Distinction State
subject: The ethical weight of Engineer A's confidentiality obligation as modulated by the fact that the deficiency information came from client disclosure rather than Engineer A's independent inspection
terminatedby: Not explicitly resolved — Engineer A treats client-confided information as fully confidential
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems
triggeringevent: Client voluntarily and directly discloses the electrical/mechanical deficiencies to Engineer A rather than Engineer A discovering them through independent inspection
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.166883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-I.1
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section I.1 (Fundamental Canon: Paramount Public Safety)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
textreferences: Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Cited to establish that the engineer's obligation to protect public health and safety is 'paramount', taking precedence over confidentiality duties
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.167091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II.1.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section II.1.a (Primary obligation to protect safety, health, property and welfare of the public)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a. The latter section refers to the primary obligation of the engineer to protect the safety, health, property and welfare of the public.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a. The latter section refers to the primary obligation of the engineer to protect the safety, health, property and welfare of the public.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Cited as the primary obligation of the engineer to protect public safety, read in conjunction with Section II.1.c to resolve the confidentiality-safety conflict
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.167311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II.1.c
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section II.1.c (Confidentiality with exception for legal or ethical disclosure obligation)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A has an ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which he acquires during the course of providing professional services to the client unless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A has an ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which he acquires during the course of providing professional services to the client unless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose.
textreferences: this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Cited to establish the engineer's duty of confidentiality and the exception permitting disclosure when authorized or required by law or the Code; interpreted in conjunction with the public safety paramount obligation
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.156383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II.4
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section II.4 (Confidentiality of client business affairs)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: this Board has interpreted the language contained in Sections II.4. and III.4. particularly in the context of the obligations of employed engineers to maintain the confidences of their employer
textreferences: this Board has interpreted the language contained in Sections II.4. and III.4. particularly in the context of the obligations of employed engineers to maintain the confidences of their employer
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in reviewing prior BER interpretations
usedincontext: Cited in the context of employed engineers' obligations to maintain employer confidences, interpreted alongside Section III.4
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.156569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-III.4
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Section III.4 (Non-disclosure of confidential client business information)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:25.079571+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section III.4 can be clearly understood to mean that an engineer has an ethical obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of any present client without the consent of that client.
textreferences: Section III.4 can be clearly understood to mean that an engineer has an ethical obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of any present client without the consent of that client.
textreferences: That provision makes no specific exception to the language.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: Cited as the primary provision establishing the engineer's obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning client business affairs without consent; analyzed for scope and exceptions
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.156763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
usedby: Engineer A in deliberating whether to disclose safety violations to third parties
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's competing obligations: confidentiality to client versus paramount duty to protect public safety of building occupants from known electrical and mechanical code violations
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.165006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Occupants Remain Exposed to Hazard
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Duty_To_Report_Imminent_Danger
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Section_I_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
causes state change: Public safety harm is no longer hypothetical but ongoing and compounding; Engineer A's inaction becomes a sustained ethical failure rather than a single decision; occupants face continuous risk without knowledge or recourse
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Escalation_Beyond_Client
creates obligation: Immediate_Reporting_To_Authorities
creates obligation: Withdrawal_From_Engagement_If_No_Action
emergency status: critical
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Ongoing from point of disclosure through conclusion of engagement
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: critical
comment: Because neither Engineer A nor the client reports the electrical and mechanical code violations to any authority, the building's occupants continue to be exposed to unmitigated dangers throughout and after the engagement.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.161063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Out-of-Scope-Safety-Finding-Reporting-Standard
type: Out-of-ScopeSafetyFindingReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Out-of-Scope Safety Finding Reporting Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Out-of-Scope Safety Finding Reporting Standard
sourcetext: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants
textreferences: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants
usedby: Engineer A when deciding how to handle client-disclosed deficiencies outside his contracted structural scope
usedincontext: Directly applicable because Engineer A was retained for structural integrity only, yet became aware of electrical and mechanical code violations outside his scope; governs whether and how he must report those findings
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.165389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Professional-Competence-Standard
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:36.563028+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
usedby: Engineer A in acknowledging the boundaries of his structural engineering scope
usedincontext: Relevant to Engineer A's recognition that, while not an electrical or mechanical engineer, he nonetheless has sufficient professional awareness to identify that the disclosed deficiencies pose injury risk to occupants, and to the limits of his authority to formally assess or certify those systems
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.152869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.090828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.090866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.090899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.090931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.090967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.096610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.095546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the fact that the safety-critical information was voluntarily disclosed by the client — rather than independently discovered by Engineer A — reduce, eliminate, or actually strengthen Engineer A's obligation to report it to public authorities?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Was Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his confidential structural report a meaningful discharge of any ethical obligation, or did it create a false appearance of compliance while ensuring the information would never reach those who needed it — the occupants or public authorities?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Given that Engineer A is a structural engineer without competence in electrical or mechanical systems, does his professional incompetence in those domains diminish his reporting obligation, or does the threshold for triggering a public safety duty require only that he recognize a risk of injury — not that he be able to evaluate it technically?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Did Engineer A have an independent ethical obligation to notify the building's current occupants directly of the known code violations, separate from any duty to report to regulatory or public authorities, given that the occupants are the parties most immediately exposed to the hazard?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle that an engineer must act as a faithful agent or trustee of the client conflict with the principle that public safety is paramount and that confidentiality agreements cannot supersede the duty to prevent imminent danger — and if so, which principle controls and under what conditions?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle that confidentiality does not apply when public danger is present conflict with the principle that client-transmitted confidential information carries its own distinct confidentiality weight under Section III.4 — and does the source of the information (client disclosure versus independent discovery) legitimately modulate the engineer's reporting threshold?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle requiring an engineer to insist on remedial action or withdraw from a project when safety is at stake conflict with the principle that an engineer's scope-of-work limitations and out-of-discipline boundaries constrain his authority to demand corrective action on electrical and mechanical systems — and how should these competing obligations be reconciled?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle that an engineer must notify appropriate authorities when professional judgment is overruled conflict with the principle that the engineer's duty to report is triggered only by dangers within his professional competence — and does passive acquiescence after verbally warning the client constitute an independent ethical violation even if the engineer genuinely believed the reporting duty was blocked by confidentiality?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to protect public safety when they allowed a contractual confidentiality obligation to override the paramount duty established in NSPE Code Section I.1, given that the code itself contains an explicit exception clause in Section II.1.c that releases engineers from confidentiality when public danger is involved?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's decision to limit disclosure to a brief mention in a confidential report — rather than notifying public authorities — produce the best reasonably achievable outcome for all affected parties, including building occupants who remained exposed to known electrical and mechanical code violations?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.092942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a licensed engineer when, after verbally warning the client of the danger, they passively acquiesced to the client's 'as is' sale directive rather than insisting on remedial action, withdrawing from the project, or escalating to public authorities?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the fact that the hazardous information was voluntarily disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered by Engineer A during inspection meaningfully alter Engineer A's duty to report, given that the NSPE Code's public safety obligation in Section I.1 is framed in terms of the engineer's knowledge of danger rather than the source of that knowledge?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had refused to accept the confidentiality agreement as a condition of engagement — or had negotiated an explicit carve-out permitting disclosure of life-safety code violations to public authorities — would the ethical conflict between client confidentiality and occupant safety have arisen at all, and does the failure to negotiate such terms itself constitute an ethical lapse?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer A had immediately notified the appropriate public authorities upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations — rather than merely mentioning them in a confidential report — what would the likely consequences have been for the building occupants, the client's sale transaction, and Engineer A's professional standing, and would those consequences have been ethically preferable to the outcome that actually occurred?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had been a licensed electrical or mechanical engineer rather than solely a structural engineer, would the scope-of-work and domain-competence arguments invoked as partial defenses have carried any weight, or would the ethical obligation to report known life-safety code violations to public authorities have been even more clearly triggered regardless of disciplinary boundaries?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Drawing on the precedent established in BER Case 84-5, if Engineer A had explicitly objected to the client's 'as is' sale decision and formally documented that objection — rather than passively acquiescing after a single verbal warning — would that act of dissent alone have been sufficient to discharge the ethical obligation, or would subsequent escalation to public authorities still have been required?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.093745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T14:12:11.091284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Verbally Warning Client of Danger
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Structural Engineer in private practice
foreseen unintended effects: Action may create a false sense that Engineer A had discharged his safety obligation
foreseen unintended effects: Client may disregard the warning and proceed with the sale unchanged
foreseen unintended effects: Warning alone, without escalation, may be insufficient to protect occupant safety
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to advise client of consequences of ignoring safety concerns
fulfills obligation text: Partial fulfillment of duty to protect public health and safety by at minimum notifying the client of the risk (Section I.1)
guided by principle text: Duty to advise of known risks
guided by principle text: Professional candor with client
guided by principle text: Public health and safety as paramount concern
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Alert the client to the safety risk posed by the known deficiencies and implicitly prompt the client to take remedial action or reconsider the 'as is' sale
raises obligation text: Obligation to notify appropriate authority when professional judgment is overruled under circumstances endangering public safety (Section II.1.c, as interpreted in Discussion)
raises obligation text: Paramount obligation to hold public health and safety above all other considerations (Section I.1), warning the client alone was insufficient when the client had already indicated no remediation would occur
requires capability text: Ethical judgment regarding adequacy of response to known safety threats
requires capability text: Professional communication with client regarding safety risks
requires capability text: Recognition of safety hazards outside primary engineering discipline
temporal marker: During engagement, after client disclosed the electrical and mechanical deficiencies
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: Upon learning from the client that the building contained electrical and mechanical code deficiencies, Engineer A informed the client that these deficiencies could cause injury to the building's occupants. This was a verbal advisory action taken directly with the client rather than with any authority or third party.
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

client's disclosure of deficiencies after structural tests (or overlapping)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: Engineer A performs several structural tests...However, during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A
from entity text: client's disclosure of deficiencies
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: structural tests (or overlapping)
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: structural tests or overlapping
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.184101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

client's disclosure of deficiencies before Engineer A informing client of danger
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies...he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
from entity text: client's disclosure of deficiencies
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A informing client of danger
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A informing client of danger
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

client's disclosure of electrical/mechanical deficiencies during Engineer A's service engagement
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems
from entity text: client's disclosure of electrical/mechanical deficiencies
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's service engagement
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s service engagement
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

client's retention of Engineer A before building sale
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell
from entity text: client's retention of Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: building sale
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: building sale
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512343+00:00
value: The non-acquiescence obligation prevails; client economic interests cannot override the public safety paramount obligation, and the engineer must refuse to continue rather than proceed passively.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.509837+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510562+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512192+00:00
value: Engineer A should have recognized that the client's directions did not authorize the ethical violation of suppressing safety-endangering information — the independent professional obligation to report the violations overrode the client's instructions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.96
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510739+00:00
value: Engineer A should have recognized that the client's directions did not authorize the ethical violation of suppressing safety-endangering information — the independent professional obligation to report the violations overrode the client's instructions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512061+00:00
value: The brief mention likely falls short of adequate client notification — Engineer A should have provided a clear, detailed written notification of the code violations and their potential consequences for building occupants

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.509924+00:00
value: The insistence/withdrawal obligation takes precedence over the desire to maintain the client relationship or complete the engagement; the public safety paramount obligation requires active agency.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511569+00:00
value: Engineer A should have conditioned continued engagement on client commitment to remediate the code violations, and should have withdrawn when the client refused — the 'as is' sale directive did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510788+00:00
value: The insistence/withdrawal obligation takes precedence over the desire to maintain the client relationship or complete the engagement; the public safety paramount obligation requires active agency.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510032+00:00
value: Engineer A should have conditioned continued engagement on client commitment to remediate the code violations, and should have withdrawn when the client refused — the 'as is' sale directive did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511619+00:00
value: Engineer A should have conditioned continued engagement on client commitment to remediate the code violations, and should have withdrawn when the client refused — the 'as is' sale directive did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512293+00:00
value: Integrated reading of III.4, II.1.c., and II.1.a. reveals that the confidentiality obligation contains a built-in exception for Code-required disclosures, and that the public safety paramount obligation constitutes such a Code-required disclosure, resolving the apparent conflict.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.96
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510094+00:00
value: Integrated reading of III.4, II.1.c., and II.1.a. reveals that the confidentiality obligation contains a built-in exception for Code-required disclosures, and that the public safety paramount obligation constitutes such a Code-required disclosure, resolving the apparent conflict.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512244+00:00
value: Integrated reading of III.4, II.1.c., and II.1.a. reveals that the confidentiality obligation contains a built-in exception for Code-required disclosures, and that the public safety paramount obligation constitutes such a Code-required disclosure, resolving the apparent conflict.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.96
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510151+00:00
value: The public safety disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement — Engineer A should have reported the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the agreement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511517+00:00
value: The public safety disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement — Engineer A should have reported the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the agreement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.96
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510688+00:00
value: The public safety disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement — Engineer A should have reported the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the agreement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512515+00:00
value: The exception clause should have been activated, requiring Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities — his failure to do so constitutes a misreading of the ethics code as a whole

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510204+00:00
value: The ethical limits of the faithful agent role required Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the confidentiality agreement — faithful agency does not extend to facilitating ongoing endangerment of building occupants

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512139+00:00
value: The ethical limits of the faithful agent role required Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the confidentiality agreement — faithful agency does not extend to facilitating ongoing endangerment of building occupants

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511668+00:00
value: The passive acquiescence prohibition overrides any claim that the engineer discharged obligations by noting the concern; the paramount safety obligation requires active agency.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511101+00:00
value: The non-acquiescence obligation prevails; client economic interests cannot override the public safety paramount obligation, and the engineer must refuse to continue rather than proceed passively.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510268+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512412+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.509724+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510632+00:00
value: The imminent danger disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement; the Code's exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.) together displace the contractual commitment.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.96
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510995+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount obligation overrides confidentiality obligation per Section I.1.'s explicit 'paramount' designation; the Code's own hierarchy resolves the conflict.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511716+00:00
value: The paramountcy of public safety required active insistence on remediation or project withdrawal — Engineer A's passive completion of the engagement after notification constitutes an independent ethical failure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510840+00:00
value: The passive acquiescence prohibition overrides any claim that the engineer discharged obligations by noting the concern; the paramount safety obligation requires active agency.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510366+00:00
value: The paramountcy of public safety required active insistence on remediation or project withdrawal — Engineer A's passive completion of the engagement after notification constitutes an independent ethical failure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511780+00:00
value: The paramountcy of public safety required active insistence on remediation or project withdrawal — Engineer A's passive completion of the engagement after notification constitutes an independent ethical failure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511840+00:00
value: The post-refusal assessment should have led Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate building or safety authorities — the client's refusal did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510426+00:00
value: The escalation assessment obligation prevails; the client's refusal activates rather than terminates the engineer's public safety obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511892+00:00
value: The escalation assessment obligation prevails; the client's refusal activates rather than terminates the engineer's public safety obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510901+00:00
value: The escalation assessment obligation prevails; the client's refusal activates rather than terminates the engineer's public safety obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511978+00:00
value: The scope limitation does not constitute an adequate defense for the inadequate disclosure of safety-endangering code violations — Engineer A should have provided clear, detailed disclosure of the violations despite the structural scope limitation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512907+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512962+00:00
value: The insistence/withdrawal obligation takes precedence over the desire to maintain the client relationship or complete the engagement; the public safety paramount obligation requires active agency.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.513051+00:00
value: Engineer A should have conditioned continued engagement on client commitment to remediate the code violations, and should have withdrawn when the client refused — the 'as is' sale directive did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.96
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.513113+00:00
value: Integrated reading of III.4, II.1.c., and II.1.a. reveals that the confidentiality obligation contains a built-in exception for Code-required disclosures, and that the public safety paramount obligation constitutes such a Code-required disclosure, resolving the apparent conflict.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.96
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.513166+00:00
value: The public safety disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement — Engineer A should have reported the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the agreement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.513217+00:00
value: The ethical limits of the faithful agent role required Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the confidentiality agreement — faithful agency does not extend to facilitating ongoing endangerment of building occupants

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.513304+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512853+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.513373+00:00
value: The paramountcy of public safety required active insistence on remediation or project withdrawal — Engineer A's passive completion of the engagement after notification constitutes an independent ethical failure

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.513446+00:00
value: The escalation assessment obligation prevails; the client's refusal activates rather than terminates the engineer's public safety obligation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.513500+00:00
value: Direct notification of building occupants was required given the direct exposure to injury risk and the client's refusal to remediate — Engineer A's failure to notify occupants constitutes an ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511334+00:00
value: Confidentiality obligation is overridden by the public safety paramount obligation and displaced by the Section II.1.c. exception clause when Code authorization for disclosure exists.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511202+00:00
value: The exception clause in Section II.1.c. structurally resolves the conflict by releasing the engineer from confidentiality when Code authorization exists; the conflict is not merely balanced but resolved by the Code's own exception mechanism.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511393+00:00
value: Confidentiality obligation is overridden by the public safety paramount obligation and displaced by the Section II.1.c. exception clause when Code authorization for disclosure exists.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511279+00:00
value: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511452+00:00
value: The source-of-information distinction supports treating the client's voluntary safety disclosure as outside the scope of the confidentiality agreement's protection, further supporting Engineer A's obligation to report the code violations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511152+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount obligation overrides confidentiality obligation per Section I.1.'s explicit 'paramount' designation; the Code's own hierarchy resolves the conflict.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512773+00:00
value: The exception clause in Section II.1.c. structurally resolves the conflict by releasing the engineer from confidentiality when Code authorization exists; the conflict is not merely balanced but resolved by the Code's own exception mechanism.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.97
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.511050+00:00
value: The exception clause in Section II.1.c. structurally resolves the conflict by releasing the engineer from confidentiality when Code authorization exists; the conflict is not merely balanced but resolved by the Code's own exception mechanism.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.510496+00:00
value: Direct notification of building occupants was required given the direct exposure to injury risk and the client's refusal to remediate — Engineer A's failure to notify occupants constitutes an ethical violation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:32:45.512464+00:00
value: Direct notification of building occupants was required given the direct exposure to injury risk and the client's refusal to remediate — Engineer A's failure to notify occupants constitutes an ethical violation

remedial action (planned but refused) before building sale
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
from entity text: remedial action (planned but refused)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: building sale
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: building sale
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.184289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recognized that electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied 60-year-old apartment building could cause injury to occupants, triggering the paramount public safety obligation that overrides the confidentiality agreeme

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's failure to report electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities violated the principle that confidentiality obligations do not bar disclosure of apparent public dangers — the code violations constituted a

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A invoked the confidentiality agreement with the client to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party, treating the confidentiality obligation as absolute and overriding the public safety exc

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A acquiesced to the client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations, proceeding to complete the structural engagement without refusing to continue or withdrawing from the project

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A made only a 'brief mention' of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his structural report, raising the question of whether this constitutes adequate client notification of the

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to recognize and activate the ethics code's public safety exception clause, treating the general confidentiality provision as absolute rather than reading the code as an integrated normative system in which the public safe

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After the client made clear that no remedial action would be taken and the building would be sold 'as is,' Engineer A failed to assess whether the client's refusal triggered an obligation to escalate to regulatory authorities or notify buil

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's structural scope of work did not cover electrical and mechanical systems, but he had actual knowledge of code violations in those systems — his 'brief mention' of the deficiencies in his structural report may reflect an attempt

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A recognized that electrical and mechanical engineering fell outside his competence as a structural engineer, and informed the client of the deficiencies — but failed to escalate to appropriate authorities or recommend engagement o

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A treated the faithful agent obligation as requiring compliance with the client's confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive, failing to recognize that the faithful agent role operates within ethical limits that include t

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to directly notify building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury, despite having actual knowledge of the hazard and the client's refusal to remediate

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A failed to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, and did not withdraw from the project despite the client's explicit statement that no remedial

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A informed the client of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies but then proceeded passively — making only a brief mention in his report and not reporting to any third party — constituting an independent ethical failure beyond

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The electrical and mechanical deficiency information was voluntarily disclosed by the client to Engineer A during the course of the engagement — not independently discovered through Engineer A's contracted structural investigation — raising

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A invoked the confidentiality agreement with the client to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party, treating the confidentiality obligation as absolute and overriding the public safety exc

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A treated the contractual confidentiality agreement as superseding his professional duty to disclose conditions constituting a danger to building occupants — the principle establishes that such agreements cannot override the paramo

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A relied on the client's confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party — treating client directions as authorizing what constituted an eth

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The electrical and mechanical deficiency information was voluntarily disclosed by the client to Engineer A during the course of the engagement — not independently discovered through Engineer A's contracted structural investigation — raising

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board finds that Section III.4.'s confidentiality obligation is fully engaged in this case because the client directly transmitted confidential information about the building's code violations to Engineer A during the professional engag

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board invokes the 'paramount' language of Section I.1. to establish that Engineer A's public safety obligation takes precedence over the confidentiality obligation of Section III.4., resolving the conflict between these two provisions i

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board holds that Engineer A should have refused to continue work on the building assessment project when the client insisted on proceeding with an 'as is' sale despite the identified electrical and mechanical code violations posing risk

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, after discovering electrical and mechanical code violations in the occupied apartment building and being told by the client the building would be sold 'as is,' proceeded with the professional engagement without insisting on reme

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The confidentiality agreement under which Engineer A was retained does not supersede the professional obligation to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations posing risk to building occupants; the Board holds that the Code's pu

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board identifies Section II.1.c.'s exception clause — which releases the engineer from confidentiality when disclosure is authorized or required by law or the Code — as the mechanism by which Engineer A's public safety obligation (Secti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board establishes that Engineer A was obligated either to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before proceeding with the 'as is' sale, or to withdraw from the project entirely — the mere noting

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board engages in explicit cross-provision balancing of three Code sections — Section III.4 (confidentiality), Section II.1.c. (exception clause), and Section II.1.a. (public safety paramount) — holding that no section may be read in iso

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After the client indicated the building would be sold 'as is' despite the identified code violations, Engineer A was obligated to assess whether this refusal — combined with the nature of the safety risk to building occupants — triggered an

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board identifies notification of the appropriate authority as a specific step Engineer A was obligated to take — and failed to take — after the client refused to address the code violations, establishing that the engineer's paramount pr

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board distinguishes the present case from Case 82-2 by reference to the source of the confidential information: in Case 82-2 the engineer discovered information through independent inspection (no client transmission), so Section III.4 d

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities, because the brief mention wa

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities, because the brief mention wa

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to contextually balance Section III.4's confidentiality obligation against Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, and to resolve that conflict in favor of public safety disc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to read Section III.4's confidentiality provision in conjunction with Section I.1.'s paramount safety language, Section II.1.a.'s public safety obligation, and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, rather than treatin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' in Section I.1. established a normative hierarchy placing public safety above the confidentiality obligation in Section III.4., and to apply that hierarchy by dis

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, after the client declined to take any remedial action on the electrical and mechanical code violations, to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently serious to require escalation to

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, after the client declined to take any remedial action on the electrical and mechanical code violations, to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently serious to require escalation to

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations he became aware of during the engagement, because the scope-of-

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the client's 'as is' sale directive — the client's business decision not to remediate prior to sale — did not override Engineer A's duty to report known electrical and mechanical code violations to

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A violated the prohibition on 'going along' by proceeding with the structural assessment engagement without dissent, comment, or escalation after the client refused to remediate known electrical and mechanical code violations and d

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's passive acquiescence — informing the client of electrical and mechanical code violations and then proceeding with the engagement without insisting on remediation, withdrawing from the project, or notifying public authorities —

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, which released him from the confidentiality obligation because the Code itself — through Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.a.'s publ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, which released him from the confidentiality obligation because the Code itself — through Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.a.'s publ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to notify the appropriate public authority — such as the building code official, fire marshal, or housing authority — of the electrical and mechanical code violations after the client overruled his professional judg

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to notify the appropriate public authority — such as the building code official, fire marshal, or housing authority — of the electrical and mechanical code violations after the client overruled his professional judg

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated either to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural assessment, or to withdraw from the project when the client refused to remediate and declared

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated either to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural assessment, or to withdraw from the project when the client refused to remediate and declared

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize the conflict between the NSPE Code's confidentiality provision (Section III.4) and the paramount public welfare obligation (Section II.1.a), and to resolve that conflict by applying the public-safety ex

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A violated the prohibition on misapplying the faithful agent role by treating the client confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive as requiring absolute non-disclosure, failing to recognize that the faithful agent role i

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations — which he knew could cause injury to current occupants of the 60-year-old occupied apartment building — to appropriate public enforcement authorities (build

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations — which he knew could cause injury to current occupants of the 60-year-old occupied apartment building — to appropriate public enforcement authorities (build

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client — to appropriate public authorities (e.g., building code enforcement, fire marshal), notwithstanding that electrical and mecha

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client — to appropriate public authorities (e.g., building code enforcement, fire marshal), notwithstanding that electrical and mecha

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to actively insist that the client take corrective action on the electrical and mechanical code violations rather than passively proceeding with the structural engagement after merely informing the client of the def

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to consider directly notifying the building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury, recognizing that the occupants are identifiable third parties directly exposed to

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or — if the client continued to refuse — to withdraw from the project rather than passiv

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or — if the client continued to refuse — to withdraw from the project rather than passiv

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not excuse him from reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, because the NSPE Code's paramount

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not excuse him from reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, because the NSPE Code's paramount

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: After the client overrode Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation by declaring the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation, Engineer A was obligated to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was fully engaged because the electrical and mechanical deficiency information was directly and voluntarily transmitted by the client during the professio

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was fully engaged because the electrical and mechanical deficiency information was directly and voluntarily transmitted by the client during the professio

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The engineer in Case 84-5 was obligated to insist that the client hire a full-time on-site project representative for the dangerous construction phase or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than 'going along' without dissent or c

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's passive acquiescence — informing the client of electrical and mechanical code violations and then proceeding with the engagement without insisting on remediation, withdrawing from the project, or notifying public authorities —

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to actively insist that the client take corrective action on the electrical and mechanical code violations rather than passively proceeding with the structural engagement after merely informing the client of the def

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities, because the brief mention wa

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to contextually balance Section III.4's confidentiality obligation against Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, and to resolve that conflict in favor of public safety disc

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to notify the appropriate public authority — such as the building code official, fire marshal, or housing authority — of the electrical and mechanical code violations after the client overruled his professional judg

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated either to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural assessment, or to withdraw from the project when the client refused to remediate and declared

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize the conflict between the NSPE Code's confidentiality provision (Section III.4) and the paramount public welfare obligation (Section II.1.a), and to resolve that conflict by applying the public-safety ex

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A violated the prohibition on misapplying the faithful agent role by treating the client confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive as requiring absolute non-disclosure, failing to recognize that the faithful agent role i

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations — which he knew could cause injury to current occupants of the 60-year-old occupied apartment building — to appropriate public enforcement authorities (build

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client — to appropriate public authorities (e.g., building code enforcement, fire marshal), notwithstanding that electrical and mecha

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to actively insist that the client take corrective action on the electrical and mechanical code violations rather than passively proceeding with the structural engagement after merely informing the client of the def

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to consider directly notifying the building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury, recognizing that the occupants are identifiable third parties directly exposed to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or — if the client continued to refuse — to withdraw from the project rather than passiv

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not excuse him from reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, because the NSPE Code's paramount

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to read Section III.4's confidentiality provision in conjunction with Section I.1.'s paramount safety language, Section II.1.a.'s public safety obligation, and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, rather than treatin

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: After the client overrode Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation by declaring the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation, Engineer A was obligated to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was fully engaged because the electrical and mechanical deficiency information was directly and voluntarily transmitted by the client during the professio

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A violated the prohibition on 'going along' by proceeding with the structural assessment engagement without dissent, comment, or escalation after the client refused to remediate known electrical and mechanical code violations and d

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's passive acquiescence — informing the client of electrical and mechanical code violations and then proceeding with the engagement without insisting on remediation, withdrawing from the project, or notifying public authorities —

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The engineer in Case 84-5 was obligated to insist that the client hire a full-time on-site project representative for the dangerous construction phase or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than 'going along' without dissent or c

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' in Section I.1. established a normative hierarchy placing public safety above the confidentiality obligation in Section III.4., and to apply that hierarchy by dis

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated, after the client declined to take any remedial action on the electrical and mechanical code violations, to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently serious to require escalation to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations he became aware of during the engagement, because the scope-of-

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the client's 'as is' sale directive — the client's business decision not to remediate prior to sale — did not override Engineer A's duty to report known electrical and mechanical code violations to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A violated the prohibition on 'going along' by proceeding with the structural assessment engagement without dissent, comment, or escalation after the client refused to remediate known electrical and mechanical code violations and d

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's passive acquiescence — informing the client of electrical and mechanical code violations and then proceeding with the engagement without insisting on remediation, withdrawing from the project, or notifying public authorities —

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, which released him from the confidentiality obligation because the Code itself — through Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.a.'s publ

structural tests before report writing
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound... In his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client
from entity text: structural tests
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: report writing
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: report writing
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.183848
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

structural tests during Engineer A's service engagement
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound. However, during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A
from entity text: structural tests
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer A's service engagement
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer A s service engagement
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.184010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 84-5 Engineer Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer
type: ConstructionPhaseSafetyRecommendationAbandoningEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Analogous Violation
attributes: {'precedent_case': 'Case 84-5', 'safety_measure_recommended': 'Full-time on-site project representative', 'client_objection': 'Cost', 'failure_mode': 'Proceeded with work without insisting on safety measure or refusing to continue'}
caseinvolvement: Referenced analogously from Case 84-5: an engineer who recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a dangerous construction phase, then abandoned that recommendation when the client objected on cost grounds and proceeded with the work. The Board found this conduct unethical and used it as the precedent framework for evaluating Engineer A's conduct in the present case.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:23.846172+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:23.846172+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'analogous_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client (Case 84-5)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer
sourcetext: Case 84-5 involved a client who planned a project and hired an engineer to furnish complete engineering services for the project
textreferences: Case 84-5 involved a client who planned a project and hired an engineer to furnish complete engineering services for the project
textreferences: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client
textreferences: the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
textreferences: the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous
textreferences: the engineer recommended that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.155953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Client Confidential Safety Information Transmitting Client
type: ConfidentialSafetyInformationTransmittingClient
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Principle Engaged by Client Transmission to Engineer A
attributes: {'information_type': 'Confidential business affairs with public safety implications', 'consent_status': 'Did not consent to disclosure', 'code_reference': 'NSPE Section III.4; Section II.1.c'}
caseinvolvement: The client transmitted confidential business information to Engineer A during the course of professional service delivery. This information implicated public safety. The client's interest in maintaining confidentiality conflicted with Engineer A's paramount obligation to notify appropriate authorities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:23.846172+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:23.846172+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'transmitted_confidential_information_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Confidential Safety Information Transmitting Client
sourcetext: under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
textreferences: an engineer has an ethical obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of any present client without the consent of that client
textreferences: the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
textreferences: under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.155712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Client Relationship Established Under Confidential Structural Engagement
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From retention through delivery of the structural report
affectedparties: Client (building owner)
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's active professional relationship with the building owner, including the confidentiality obligation and scope limitations of the structural investigation
terminatedby: Completion of the structural investigation and report delivery
textreferences: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell
triggeringevent: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of the occupied apartment building
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.154985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Applied in Case 82-2 Contrast
type: ConfidentialityExpectationSource-of-InformationDistinctionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Determination of whether Section III.4 confidentiality obligation applies to Engineer A's possession of code violation information
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board distinguishes the present case from Case 82-2 by reference to the source of the confidential information: in Case 82-2 the engineer discovered information through independent inspection (no client transmission), so Section III.4 did not apply; in the present case the client transmitted the information directly, so Section III.4 is fully engaged.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The confidentiality obligation's applicability turns on whether the client affirmatively transmitted the information to the engineer; independently discovered information does not carry the same confidentiality expectation.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Principle
sourcetext: In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer. However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case.
tensionresolution: The source-of-information distinction determines which confidentiality framework applies, but even the stronger client-transmission confidentiality is overridden by the public safety paramount obligation.
textreferences: However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A.
textreferences: In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
textreferences: Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.173620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Obligation vs. Occupant Safety Competing Duties
type: ConfidentialityObligationvs.ImminentPublicDangerCompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From client's disclosure of deficiencies through Engineer A's decision not to report to third parties
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective buyers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: critical
sourcetext: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
stateclass: Confidentiality Obligation vs. Imminent Public Danger Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous obligation to maintain client confidentiality and obligation to protect occupants from known code-violating safety hazards
terminatedby: Engineer A's decision to include only a brief mention in the confidential report and not report to third parties — state persists unresolved
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
triggeringevent: Engineer A learns of code violations that could injure occupants while bound by a confidentiality agreement
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.166427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Domain-Specific Incompetence in Electrical and Mechanical Systems
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the engagement — Engineer A is a structural engineer without electrical or mechanical expertise
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Occupants
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Engineer A's lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering while holding structural engineering licensure
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A's competence boundary persists
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
triggeringevent: Engineer A is confronted with client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations outside his domain
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.154358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client Cost-Driven Safety Oversight Rejection (Case 84-5 Analogy)
type: ClientCost-DrivenSafetyOversightRejectionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From client's refusal to hire on-site project representative through engineer's continued work without dissent
affectedparties: Client (Case 84-5)
affectedparties: Engineer (Case 84-5)
affectedparties: Project workers and public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
stateclass: Client Cost-Driven Safety Oversight Rejection State
subject: The analogous state from Case 84-5 referenced in the discussion, where a client refused to fund a full-time on-site project representative recommended by the engineer on safety grounds, and the engineer proceeded without insisting or withdrawing
terminatedby: Not terminated within the referenced case — engineer proceeded without resolution
textreferences: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
textreferences: the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
textreferences: the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous
triggeringevent: Client's determination that the project would be too costly if a full-time on-site project representative were hired, leading to refusal of the engineer's safety recommendation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.159505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Code-Based Confidentiality Exception Activation
type: Code-BasedConfidentialityExceptionActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which the Board determines the code exception applies through the point at which Engineer A should have disclosed to appropriate authority
affectedparties: Appropriate governmental authority
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
stateclass: Code-Based Confidentiality Exception Activation State
subject: Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 and Section II.1.c, where the code's own exception clause releases the engineer from non-disclosure when public safety is at stake
terminatedby: Would be terminated by Engineer A notifying appropriate authority — which did not occur
textreferences: if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality
textreferences: this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
triggeringevent: Board's interpretation that Section II.1.c's exception ('authorized or required by law or by the Code') applies when public health and safety are endangered, releasing Engineer A from confidentiality
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.158919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Competing Duties
type: ConfidentialityObligationvs.ImminentPublicDangerCompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment the client disclosed the out-of-scope safety violations to Engineer A through the conclusion of the engagement without escalation
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Prospective purchasers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information...and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety
stateclass: Confidentiality Obligation vs. Imminent Public Danger Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous obligations to maintain client confidentiality and to protect occupant/public safety regarding disclosed code violations
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A 'went along' without resolving the conflict in favor of public safety
textreferences: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information...and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety
textreferences: matters of public health and safety must take precedence. The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount'
triggeringevent: Client's voluntary disclosure of safety-relevant code violations in systems outside Engineer A's domain, combined with client's stated intent to sell the building 'as is' and the existing confidentiality agreement
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.158700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Paramount Safety Obligation Notification Duty
type: GraduatedEscalationObligationCalibratedtoDangerSeverityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point at which Engineer A's safety concerns were effectively overruled by the client's decision through the end of the engagement
affectedparties: Appropriate governmental authority
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective purchasers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
stateclass: Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
subject: Engineer A's obligation to notify the appropriate authority when professional judgment regarding safety was overruled by the client's 'as-is' sale decision, calibrated to the severity of the safety risk posed to occupants and prospective purchasers
terminatedby: Would be terminated by notification to appropriate authority — which did not occur
textreferences: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
triggeringevent: Client's refusal to remediate known safety violations and intent to sell the building 'as is,' overruling Engineer A's implicit professional judgment that the conditions were unsafe
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.159775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Out-of-Scope Code Violation Disclosure in Occupied Building Sale
type: Out-of-ScopeCodeViolationDisclosureinOccupiedBuildingSaleState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment the client confides the deficiencies to Engineer A through the end of the engagement and beyond
affectedparties: Applicable regulatory authorities
affectedparties: Client (building owner)
affectedparties: Current occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective buyers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: critical
sourcetext: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
stateclass: Out-of-Scope Code Violation Disclosure in Occupied Building Sale State
subject: Engineer A's knowledge of client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied building being sold 'as is'
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts — Engineer A does not report to third parties and the sale proceeds
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
triggeringevent: Client voluntarily discloses to Engineer A that the building contains electrical and mechanical deficiencies violating applicable codes and standards
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.166200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Client Notification Obligation Partially Discharged By Engineer A Brief Mention
type: ClientNotificationObligationforDiscoveredSafetyHazard
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building owner client
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations
appliedto: Structural report
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A made only a 'brief mention' of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his structural report, raising the question of whether this constitutes adequate client notification of the safety hazard
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: A 'brief mention' of a conversation about safety-endangering code violations may be insufficient to discharge the client notification obligation — the principle requires clear, unambiguous notification of identified risks, not merely a passing reference to a conversation
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Client Notification Obligation for Discovered Safety Hazard
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
tensionresolution: The brief mention likely falls short of adequate client notification — Engineer A should have provided a clear, detailed written notification of the code violations and their potential consequences for building occupants
textreferences: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.161396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Building Owner Selling As-Is Client
type: BuildingOwnerSellingAs-IswithKnownCodeViolationsClient
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation Applied To Engineer A Confidentiality Reliance
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession Principle Violated By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Principle Invoked By Engineer A Under Contractual Agreement
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Source-of-Information Distinction Applied To Client Voluntary Disclosure
attributes: {'confidentiality_agreement': True, 'sale_condition': 'as is', 'remedial_action_planned': False, 'disclosed_violations': 'Electrical and mechanical system deficiencies violating applicable codes and standards'}
caseinvolvement: Client retaining Engineer A under a confidentiality agreement to assess the building for sale; explicitly states the building will be sold 'as is' with no remedial action; discloses known electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A during the engagement.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:37.537826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:37.537826+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'imposes_confidentiality_on', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Building Owner Selling As-Is with Known Code Violations Client
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is'
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is'
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.153554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Analogous Violation
type: Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Client Cost-Driven Safety Oversight Rejection (Case 84-5 Analogy)
casecontext: Case 84-5 engineer recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction phase; client refused on cost grounds; engineer proceeded without insisting or withdrawing — conduct the Board found unethical and applied analogously to Engineer A's situation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Passive Acquiescence Ethical Failure — Engineer A Going Along After Client Safety Refusal
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer (Case 84-5)
obligationclass: Going-Along Prohibition After Client Safety Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: The engineer in Case 84-5 was obligated to insist that the client hire a full-time on-site project representative for the dangerous construction phase or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than 'going along' without dissent or comment after the client refused to hire the representative on cost grounds.
sourcetext: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
temporalscope: After client's refusal to hire on-site project representative on cost grounds
textreferences: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
textreferences: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.177241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Competence Boundary Recognition Partially Discharged By Engineer A
type: CompetenceBoundaryRecognitionandEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations
appliedto: Engineer A's structural engineering competence boundary
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A recognized that electrical and mechanical engineering fell outside his competence as a structural engineer, and informed the client of the deficiencies — but failed to escalate to appropriate authorities or recommend engagement of competent specialists to address the identified safety risks
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer A's recognition of his competence boundary was appropriate, but the escalation obligation required more than merely informing the client — he should have recommended engagement of electrical and mechanical engineers and escalated to appropriate authorities when the client refused to act
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Competence Boundary Recognition and Escalation Obligation
sourcetext: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
tensionresolution: The competence boundary recognition triggered an escalation obligation that Engineer A partially discharged by informing the client but failed to fully discharge by not recommending specialist engagement or escalating to authorities
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.168006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidential Structural Engagement Agreement Active
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From execution of the engagement agreement through completion and delivery of the structural report
affectedparties: Client (building owner)
affectedparties: Current occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective buyers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer A's structural report and all findings under the confidential engagement agreement
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts — confidentiality persists at case end
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
triggeringevent: Client and Engineer A agree that the structural report is to remain confidential
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.166010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Principle Invoked By Engineer A Under Contractual Agreement
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client-disclosed electrical and mechanical deficiency information
appliedto: Structural report confidentiality
balancingwith: Code Exception Clause Activation for Public Safety Disclosure
balancingwith: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A invoked the confidentiality agreement with the client to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party, treating the confidentiality obligation as absolute and overriding the public safety exception
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The confidentiality agreement legitimately protects the structural report as a business document, but cannot be extended to suppress safety-endangering code violations that endanger building occupants — the principle must be balanced against the public safety exception
invokedby: Building Owner Selling As-Is Client
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
tensionresolution: Engineer A incorrectly resolved the tension by treating confidentiality as absolute — the correct resolution requires recognizing that the public safety exception overrides the general confidentiality obligation when building occupants face injury risk
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.150430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Failure
type: CompetingConfidentiality-SafetyCodeProvisionContextualBalancingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report to Third Parties
casecontext: Engineer A failed to perform the required contextual balancing between the confidentiality obligation and the paramount public safety obligation, instead applying Section III.4 in isolation and treating it as an absolute bar to disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing — III.4 vs. II.1.a. vs. II.1.c.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to contextually balance Section III.4's confidentiality obligation against Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, and to resolve that conflict in favor of public safety disclosure rather than treating the confidentiality provision as absolute.
sourcetext: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of the conflict between confidentiality and public safety obligations
textreferences: The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
textreferences: While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.162365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Ethics Code Cross-Provision Non-Vacuum Reading Failure
type: EthicsCodeCross-ProvisionNon-VacuumReadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report to Third Parties
casecontext: Engineer A applied Section III.4's confidentiality obligation as if it were absolute and contained no exceptions, failing to integrate it with the Code's paramount safety provisions and the internal exception clause that authorized disclosure.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing — III.4 vs. II.1.a. vs. II.1.c.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Ethics Code Cross-Provision Non-Vacuum Reading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to read Section III.4's confidentiality provision in conjunction with Section I.1.'s paramount safety language, Section II.1.a.'s public safety obligation, and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, rather than treating Section III.4 in isolation as an absolute prohibition on disclosure.
sourcetext: While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
temporalscope: Throughout the professional engagement and upon discovery of the client's refusal to remediate
textreferences: We believe under the facts, Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
textreferences: While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.172931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Paramount Safety Word Supremacy Hierarchy Non-Recognition
type: ParamountSafetyWordSupremacyHierarchyRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: Engineer A treated the confidentiality obligation as effectively overriding the public safety obligation, failing to apply the hierarchical supremacy that the Code's use of 'paramount' was intended to establish.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Confidentiality-Safety Conflict
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Paramount Safety Word Supremacy Hierarchy Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' in Section I.1. established a normative hierarchy placing public safety above the confidentiality obligation in Section III.4., and to apply that hierarchy by disclosing the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities rather than treating the confidentiality obligation as co-equal with or superior to the paramount safety duty.
sourcetext: The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of electrical and mechanical code violations and throughout the professional engagement
textreferences: The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
textreferences: The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
textreferences: We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.175373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Scope of Work Non-Shield Electrical Mechanical Safety Disclosure
type: Scope-of-WorkNon-ShieldforStructuralSafetyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Domain-Specific Incompetence in Electrical and Mechanical Systems
casecontext: Engineer A's contracted scope was structural integrity assessment. He was not an electrical or mechanical engineer. He used the scope limitation, combined with the confidentiality agreement, to justify not reporting the electrical and mechanical violations to any third party.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Scope-of-Work Limitation Invoked As Incomplete Defense By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Scope-of-Work Non-Shield for Structural Safety Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations he became aware of during the engagement, because the scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense when the engineer has actual knowledge of a safety hazard.
sourcetext: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
temporalscope: Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations from the client
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.170341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directive Violated By Engineer A
type: Non-AcquiescencetoUnsafeClientDirectives
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client's 'as is' sale directive
appliedto: Client's refusal to remediate code violations
appliedto: Structural engagement completion
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A acquiesced to the client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations, proceeding to complete the structural engagement without refusing to continue or withdrawing from the project
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The client's 'as is' sale directive combined with the refusal to remediate code violations that could cause injury to occupants constituted an unsafe client directive — Engineer A was obligated to refuse to proceed rather than acquiesce
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
tensionresolution: Engineer A should have refused to complete the engagement without client commitment to remediate the code violations — the 'as is' directive did not override the professional obligation to refuse unsafe client directives
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.168505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk from Known Code Violations in Occupied Building
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From client's disclosure of deficiencies through the end of the case — no remediation is planned
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Current building occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective buyers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: critical
sourcetext: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: The safety of current occupants of the 60-year-old apartment building who are exposed to known electrical and mechanical code violations
terminatedby: Not terminated — no remediation planned, no third-party reporting made
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
triggeringevent: Engineer A learns that electrical and mechanical deficiencies violating applicable codes could cause injury to occupants
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.154835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Code Exception Clause Activation Obligation Failed By Engineer A
type: CodeExceptionClauseActivationforPublicSafetyDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied building
appliedto: Ethics code confidentiality provision
appliedto: Ethics code public safety exception clause
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to recognize and activate the ethics code's public safety exception clause, treating the general confidentiality provision as absolute rather than reading the code as an integrated normative system in which the public safety exception qualifies the general confidentiality obligation
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The factual conditions for activating the public safety exception were present — code violations that could cause injury to building occupants — and Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply the exception clause rather than treating the general confidentiality provision as controlling
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Code Exception Clause Activation for Public Safety Disclosure
sourcetext: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
tensionresolution: The exception clause should have been activated, requiring Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities — his failure to do so constitutes a misreading of the ethics code as a whole
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.155272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession — Engineer A's Contractual Confidentiality vs. Imminent Danger
type: ConfidentialityAgreementNon-SupersessionofImminentDangerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's confidentiality agreement with the building owner client and the obligation to disclose code violations to appropriate authorities
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The confidentiality agreement under which Engineer A was retained does not supersede the professional obligation to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations posing risk to building occupants; the Board holds that the Code's public safety paramount obligation and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause override any contractual confidentiality commitment.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Contractual confidentiality obligations — including those explicitly agreed to by the engineer at the outset of the engagement — yield to the professional duty to disclose when building occupants face imminent safety risk from undisclosed code violations.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession of Imminent Danger Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
tensionresolution: The imminent danger disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement; the Code's exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.) together displace the contractual commitment.
textreferences: The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation.
textreferences: We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
textreferences: if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.175157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A As-Is Sale Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override
type: As-IsSaleClientDirectiveSafetyReportingNon-OverrideObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client As-Is Sale No Remediation Intent Active
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: The client explicitly stated the building would be sold 'as is' with no remedial action. Engineer A treated this directive, combined with the confidentiality agreement, as justification for not reporting the safety violations to any third party.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation Applied To Engineer A Confidentiality Reliance
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: As-Is Sale Client Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the client's 'as is' sale directive — the client's business decision not to remediate prior to sale — did not override Engineer A's duty to report known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, because the client's commercial decision cannot extinguish the engineer's paramount public welfare obligation.
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
temporalscope: Upon the client's declaration of the 'as is' sale intent and throughout the remainder of the engagement
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.169934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification
type: BriefReportMentionInsufficiencyforPublicAuthoritySafetyNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Confidential Structural Engagement Agreement Active
casecontext: Engineer A made only a 'brief mention' of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his structural report, which was a confidential document provided only to the client — not to any public authority with enforcement jurisdiction.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Violated By Engineer A
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A In Occupied Building Safety Context
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities, because the brief mention was buried in a confidential document that public enforcement authorities would never receive, and therefore could not trigger the enforcement action necessary to protect building occupants.
sourcetext: Client Notification Obligation Partially Discharged By Engineer A Brief Mention: Engineer A made only a 'brief mention' of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his structural report.
temporalscope: Upon completion of the structural assessment report
textreferences: Client Notification Obligation Partially Discharged By Engineer A Brief Mention: Engineer A made only a 'brief mention' of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his structural report.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.162576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Assessment
type: Post-Client-OverridePublicSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Client As-Is Sale No Remediation Intent Active
casecontext: After informing the client of the deficiencies and receiving no commitment to remediate, Engineer A failed to assess or pursue escalation to public authorities, instead treating the client notification as sufficient discharge of his safety obligation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Not Conducted By Engineer A
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment — Engineer A After 'As Is' Sale Decision
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, after the client declined to take any remedial action on the electrical and mechanical code violations, to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently serious to require escalation to appropriate regulatory or public enforcement authorities, and to take such escalation steps given the known injury risk to occupants.
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
temporalscope: After the client's refusal to take remedial action became clear
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.151035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Not Conducted By Engineer A
type: Post-Client-RefusalEscalationAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building occupants' safety
appliedto: Client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After the client made clear that no remedial action would be taken and the building would be sold 'as is,' Engineer A failed to assess whether the client's refusal triggered an obligation to escalate to regulatory authorities or notify building occupants directly
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The client's explicit refusal to remediate, combined with the severity of the code violations and the direct exposure of building occupants to injury risk, required Engineer A to conduct a structured assessment of escalation options — his failure to do so constitutes an ethical violation
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
tensionresolution: The post-refusal assessment should have led Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate building or safety authorities — the client's refusal did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.162142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Scope-of-Work Limitation Invoked As Incomplete Defense By Engineer A
type: Scope-of-WorkLimitationasIncompleteEthicalDefense
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations
appliedto: Structural report content
appliedto: Structural scope of work
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's structural scope of work did not cover electrical and mechanical systems, but he had actual knowledge of code violations in those systems — his 'brief mention' of the deficiencies in his structural report may reflect an attempt to invoke scope limitations as justification for inadequate disclosure
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The scope limitation defined what Engineer A was required to investigate, not what he was permitted to suppress — his actual knowledge of safety-endangering code violations required more than a brief mention in the structural report
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
tensionresolution: The scope limitation does not constitute an adequate defense for the inadequate disclosure of safety-endangering code violations — Engineer A should have provided clear, detailed disclosure of the violations despite the structural scope limitation
textreferences: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
textreferences: Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.168262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation Applied To Engineer A Confidentiality Reliance
type: ClientDirectionDoesNotAuthorizeEthicalViolation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client's 'as is' sale directive
appliedto: Confidentiality agreement
appliedto: Non-reporting of code violations
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A relied on the client's confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party — treating client directions as authorizing what constituted an ethical violation of the public safety obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The client's confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive did not authorize Engineer A's non-disclosure of safety-endangering code violations — client directions cannot authorize ethical violations, and Engineer A retained an independent obligation to report the violations regardless of client instructions
invokedby: Building Owner Selling As-Is Client
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation
sourcetext: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
tensionresolution: Engineer A should have recognized that the client's directions did not authorize the ethical violation of suppressing safety-endangering information — the independent professional obligation to report the violations overrode the client's instructions
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.163337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession Principle Violated By Engineer A
type: ConfidentialityAgreementNon-SupersessionofImminentDangerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building occupants' safety
appliedto: Confidentiality agreement
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations endangering occupants
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A treated the contractual confidentiality agreement as superseding his professional duty to disclose conditions constituting a danger to building occupants — the principle establishes that such agreements cannot override the paramount public safety obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The confidentiality agreement, while legitimate for protecting business information, could not legally or ethically override Engineer A's professional duty to disclose conditions that posed a danger to building occupants — Engineer A's reliance on the agreement to justify non-disclosure constitutes an ethical violation
invokedby: Building Owner Selling As-Is Client
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession of Imminent Danger Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
tensionresolution: The public safety disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement — Engineer A should have reported the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the agreement
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.160060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Principle Engaged by Client Transmission to Engineer A
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's possession of confidential client information about electrical and mechanical code violations in the apartment building
balancingwith: Code Exception Clause Activation for Public Safety Disclosure
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board finds that Section III.4.'s confidentiality obligation is fully engaged in this case because the client directly transmitted confidential information about the building's code violations to Engineer A during the professional engagement, distinguishing this case from Case 82-2 where no such transmission occurred.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Section III.4. confidentiality applies specifically to information given by the client to the engineer in the course of providing services; the client's direct transmission of the code violation information triggers this obligation.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case.
tensionresolution: Confidentiality obligation is overridden by the public safety paramount obligation and displaced by the Section II.1.c. exception clause when Code authorization for disclosure exists.
textreferences: Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client
textreferences: The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation.
textreferences: under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.173351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal
type: EngineerPassiveAcquiescencetoClientSafetyRefusalState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's acknowledgment of the safety risk through completion of the engagement without escalation or withdrawal
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective purchasers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:42.161515+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code
stateclass: Engineer Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal State
subject: Engineer A's continuation of work on behalf of the client without insisting on safety remediation, withdrawing from the project, or notifying appropriate authorities after the client's 'as-is' sale intent became clear
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A's passive acquiescence persisted through the end of the engagement
textreferences: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
textreferences: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code
textreferences: the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous
triggeringevent: Client's disclosure of safety violations combined with stated intent to sell 'as is,' and Engineer A's decision to proceed with work without further objection
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.159151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Section II.1.c. Exception Clause Non-Activation Violation
type: SectionII.1.c.Law-or-Code-AuthorizedConfidentialityReleaseObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report to Third Parties
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: Engineer A treated the confidentiality agreement as absolute and failed to invoke the Code's internal exception clause that would have authorized disclosure of the safety-threatening electrical and mechanical code violations in the occupied apartment building.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Code Exception Clause Activation Obligation Failed By Engineer A
derived from principle: Code Exception Clause Activation — Section II.1.c. Releases Engineer A from Confidentiality
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Section II.1.c. Law-or-Code-Authorized Confidentiality Release Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, which released him from the confidentiality obligation because the Code itself — through Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.a.'s public safety obligation — authorized and required disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities.
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A has an ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which he acquires during the course of providing professional services to the client unless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose.
temporalscope: Upon discovery that client would not remediate and building would be sold 'as is' with known code violations
textreferences: Importantly, however, this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code.
textreferences: In other words if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A has an ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which he acquires during the course of providing professional services to the client unless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.175950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Insistence on Remedial Action or Withdrawal Obligation Not Met By Engineer A
type: InsistenceonClientRemedialActionorProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client's 'as is' sale directive
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations
appliedto: Structural engagement completion
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, and did not withdraw from the project despite the client's explicit statement that no remedial action would be taken
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The client's explicit statement that the building would be sold 'as is' with no remediation triggered Engineer A's obligation to insist on remediation or withdraw — Engineer A's passive completion of the engagement without either insisting or withdrawing constitutes an ethical violation
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
tensionresolution: Engineer A should have conditioned continued engagement on client commitment to remediate the code violations, and should have withdrawn when the client refused — the 'as is' sale directive did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation
textreferences: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.161926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives — Engineer A Should Have Refused to Continue
type: Non-AcquiescencetoUnsafeClientDirectives
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision to continue professional engagement after client refused to address code violations
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board holds that Engineer A should have refused to continue work on the building assessment project when the client insisted on proceeding with an 'as is' sale despite the identified electrical and mechanical code violations posing risk to building occupants, rather than subordinating public safety to the client's economic interest in the sale.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Client economic preferences — including the desire to sell a building 'as is' without remediation — do not override the engineer's obligation to refuse continuation of work when safety measures have been identified as necessary and rejected.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
sourcetext: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project. We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case.
tensionresolution: The non-acquiescence obligation prevails; client economic interests cannot override the public safety paramount obligation, and the engineer must refuse to continue rather than proceed passively.
textreferences: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
textreferences: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
textreferences: We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.174251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Code Exception Clause Activation — Section II.1.c. Releases Engineer A from Confidentiality
type: CodeExceptionClauseActivationforPublicSafetyDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's obligation to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities despite the confidentiality agreement
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board identifies Section II.1.c.'s exception clause — which releases the engineer from confidentiality when disclosure is authorized or required by law or the Code — as the mechanism by which Engineer A's public safety obligation (Section II.1.a.) displaces the confidentiality obligation (Section III.4.), establishing that the Code's own provisions authorize the disclosure.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Section II.1.c.'s exception clause is triggered when another Code provision (here, Section II.1.a.'s public safety paramount obligation) affirmatively requires disclosure; the confidentiality obligation is thereby displaced, not merely overridden.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Code Exception Clause Activation for Public Safety Disclosure
sourcetext: Importantly, however, this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code. In other words if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.
tensionresolution: The exception clause in Section II.1.c. structurally resolves the conflict by releasing the engineer from confidentiality when Code authorization exists; the conflict is not merely balanced but resolved by the Code's own exception mechanism.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
textreferences: if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality
textreferences: this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.173866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Source-of-Information Distinction Applied To Client Voluntary Disclosure
type: ConfidentialityExpectationSource-of-InformationDistinctionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client's voluntary disclosure of electrical and mechanical deficiencies
appliedto: Confidentiality agreement covering structural report
balancingwith: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The electrical and mechanical deficiency information was voluntarily disclosed by the client to Engineer A during the course of the engagement — not independently discovered through Engineer A's contracted structural investigation — raising the question of whether this volunteered disclosure carries the same confidentiality protection as the contracted structural report
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The confidentiality agreement explicitly covered the structural report — the client's voluntary disclosure of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies may carry a different and potentially weaker confidentiality expectation, particularly given that the disclosure implicates public safety
invokedby: Building Owner Selling As-Is Client
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Principle
sourcetext: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
tensionresolution: The source-of-information distinction supports treating the client's voluntary safety disclosure as outside the scope of the confidentiality agreement's protection, further supporting Engineer A's obligation to report the code violations
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.167516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Confidentiality Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing
type: CompetingConfidentiality-SafetyCodeProvisionContextualBalancingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report to Third Parties
casecontext: Engineer A faced a direct conflict between his contractual confidentiality obligation and his duty to report electrical and mechanical code violations that could injure building occupants. He resolved the conflict in favor of confidentiality without applying the public-safety exception.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing — III.4 vs. II.1.a. vs. II.1.c.
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize the conflict between the NSPE Code's confidentiality provision (Section III.4) and the paramount public welfare obligation (Section II.1.a), and to resolve that conflict by applying the public-safety exception clause (Section II.1.c) rather than treating the confidentiality agreement as absolute.
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
temporalscope: Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations from the client
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.169256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Role Misapplication to Confidentiality Absolutism
type: FaithfulAgentRoleMisapplicationtoConfidentialityAbsolutismProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Client Relationship Established Under Confidential Structural Engagement
casecontext: Engineer A relied on the faithful agent and trustee relationship and the confidentiality agreement to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities, treating client loyalty as overriding the paramount public safety obligation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Misapplied By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Role Misapplication to Confidentiality Absolutism Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A violated the prohibition on misapplying the faithful agent role by treating the client confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive as requiring absolute non-disclosure, failing to recognize that the faithful agent role is bounded by the paramount public safety obligation and does not authorize suppression of known safety hazards.
sourcetext: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients. They are privy to a great deal of information and background concerning the business affairs of their client.
temporalscope: Throughout the professional engagement and upon client's refusal to remediate
textreferences: Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients. They are privy to a great deal of information and background concerning the business affairs of their client.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
textreferences: The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.177038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Going-Along After Client Safety Refusal Independent Ethical Violation
type: Going-AlongProhibitionAfterClientSafetyRefusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: Engineer A, after informing the client of electrical and mechanical deficiencies and being told the building would be sold 'as is,' made only a brief mention in his structural report and proceeded passively with the engagement — mirroring the conduct condemned in Case 84-5.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Passive Acquiescence Ethical Failure — Engineer A Going Along After Client Safety Refusal
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Going-Along Prohibition After Client Safety Refusal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A violated the prohibition on 'going along' by proceeding with the structural assessment engagement without dissent, comment, or escalation after the client refused to remediate known electrical and mechanical code violations and declared the building would be sold 'as is,' constituting an independent ethical failure separate from any failure to report.
sourcetext: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
temporalscope: After client's refusal to remediate and throughout completion of the structural assessment engagement
textreferences: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
textreferences: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.176323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Tenant Occupant Direct Notification Electrical Mechanical Violations
type: TenantImminentStructuralDangerDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Confidential Structural Engagement Agreement Active
casecontext: The building was occupied at the time of Engineer A's engagement. The client intended to sell 'as is' without remediation. The occupants were exposed to injury risk from electrical and mechanical code violations that Engineer A knew about but did not disclose to any third party, including the occupants.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Not Discharged By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Tenant Imminent Structural Danger Direct Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to consider directly notifying the building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury, recognizing that the occupants are identifiable third parties directly exposed to the hazard and that no other party was positioned to protect them given the client's 'as is' sale intent.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
temporalscope: Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations and their potential to injure occupants
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.151225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Misapplied By Engineer A
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client's 'as is' sale directive
appliedto: Confidentiality agreement
appliedto: Structural engagement
balancingwith: Code Exception Clause Activation for Public Safety Disclosure
balancingwith: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A treated the faithful agent obligation as requiring compliance with the client's confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive, failing to recognize that the faithful agent role operates within ethical limits that include the public safety exception to confidentiality
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation required Engineer A to execute the structural assessment diligently and protect legitimate client confidentiality interests — but it did not require compliance with client directives that violated the public safety exception to confidentiality
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building
tensionresolution: The ethical limits of the faithful agent role required Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the confidentiality agreement — faithful agency does not extend to facilitating ongoing endangerment of building occupants
textreferences: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.167759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Not Discharged By Engineer A
type: Third-PartyAffectedPartyDirectNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building occupants exposed to injury risk
appliedto: Client's refusal to remediate
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to directly notify building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury, despite having actual knowledge of the hazard and the client's refusal to remediate
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The building occupants were identifiable third parties directly exposed to injury risk from the code violations — Engineer A's obligation to protect their safety required direct notification when the client refused to remediate and regulatory reporting was not pursued
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
sourcetext: those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
tensionresolution: Direct notification of building occupants was required given the direct exposure to injury risk and the client's refusal to remediate — Engineer A's failure to notify occupants constitutes an ethical violation
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.163116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Violated By Engineer A
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Confidentiality agreement covering structural report
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations endangering building occupants
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's failure to report electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities violated the principle that confidentiality obligations do not bar disclosure of apparent public dangers — the code violations constituted an apparent danger to building occupants that Engineer A was obligated to report
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The confidentiality agreement covered the structural report as a business document but did not extend to bar Engineer A from advising appropriate authorities of the apparent danger posed by the electrical and mechanical code violations — this disclosure would not constitute a violation of the protected confidentiality obligation
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
tensionresolution: The principle establishes that disclosure of apparent public dangers is outside the scope of confidentiality protection — Engineer A's failure to recognize this distinction constitutes the core ethical violation in this case
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
textreferences: those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.152400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Appropriate Authority Notification After Client Safety Override Failure
type: AppropriateAuthorityNotificationAfterProfessionalJudgmentSafetyOverrideObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: After the client refused to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations and declared the building would be sold 'as is,' Engineer A failed to notify any appropriate public authority and instead proceeded passively with the structural assessment engagement.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Appropriate Authority Notification When Professional Judgment Overruled — Engineer A Obligation
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Confidentiality-Safety Conflict
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Appropriate Authority Notification After Professional Judgment Safety Override Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to notify the appropriate public authority — such as the building code official, fire marshal, or housing authority — of the electrical and mechanical code violations after the client overruled his professional judgment by refusing to remediate and declaring the building would be sold 'as is', because the paramount public welfare obligation required affirmative escalation to enforcement authorities when his safety judgment was rejected.
sourcetext: We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
temporalscope: After client's declaration that building would be sold 'as is' without remediation of known code violations
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
textreferences: We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.176106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Failure
type: ClientSafetyViolationInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Client As-Is Sale No Remediation Intent Active
casecontext: Client refused to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations and declared the building would be sold 'as is.' Engineer A neither insisted on remediation nor withdrew from the project, instead completing the structural assessment with only a brief mention of the deficiencies.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Withdrawal — Engineer A Obligation
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives — Engineer A Should Have Refused to Continue
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated either to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural assessment, or to withdraw from the project when the client refused to remediate and declared the building would be sold 'as is,' rather than proceeding passively with the engagement.
sourcetext: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
temporalscope: Upon client's refusal to remediate and declaration of 'as is' sale
textreferences: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
textreferences: We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.176755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Occupied Building Electrical Mechanical Violation Occupant Escalation
type: OccupiedBuildingElectrical-MechanicalCodeViolationOccupantInjuryRiskEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk from Known Code Violations in Occupied Building
casecontext: Engineer A knew the building was occupied and that the electrical and mechanical code violations could injure occupants. He informed the client but took no further escalation steps, relying on the confidentiality agreement and the client's 'as is' sale directive as justification.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Violated By Engineer A
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A In Occupied Building Safety Context
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Occupied Building Electrical-Mechanical Code Violation Occupant Injury Risk Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations — which he knew could cause injury to current occupants of the 60-year-old occupied apartment building — to appropriate public enforcement authorities (building code officials, fire marshal, or housing authorities), recognizing that the occupants' ongoing exposure created an immediacy requiring affirmative escalation beyond client notification.
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
temporalscope: Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations and their potential to injure current occupants
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.170150
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Out-of-Discipline Electrical Mechanical Code Violation Public Authority Reporting
type: Out-of-DisciplineSafetyCodeViolationPublicAuthorityReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: Engineer A, a structural engineer retained under a confidentiality agreement to assess a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is,' was informed by the client that the building contained electrical and mechanical code violations that could injure occupants. Engineer A did not report these violations to any third party.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Competence Boundary Recognition Partially Discharged By Engineer A
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A In Occupied Building Safety Context
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Public Authority Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client — to appropriate public authorities (e.g., building code enforcement, fire marshal), notwithstanding that electrical and mechanical engineering fell outside his structural engineering scope and notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement, because those violations could cause injury to building occupants.
sourcetext: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
temporalscope: Upon receiving client disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations, and no later than completion of the structural engagement
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
textreferences: the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.168777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure
type: PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: Engineer A informed the client of electrical and mechanical deficiencies but then made only a brief mention in his structural report and completed the engagement without further action, passively acquiescing to the client's 'as is' sale decision.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification Independent Ethical Failure By Engineer A
derived from principle: Passive Acquiescence Ethical Failure — Engineer A Going Along After Client Safety Refusal
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's passive acquiescence — informing the client of electrical and mechanical code violations and then proceeding with the engagement without insisting on remediation, withdrawing from the project, or notifying public authorities — constituted an independent ethical failure under the NSPE Code, separate from and in addition to his failure to report the violations to appropriate authorities.
sourcetext: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous.
temporalscope: After client notification of deficiencies and throughout completion of the structural assessment
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
textreferences: The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.176517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure
type: PassiveAcquiescencetoKnownSafetyViolationIndependentEthicalFailureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Engineer A Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal
casecontext: Engineer A informed the client of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies but then proceeded passively — making only a brief mention in his report and taking no further action — while the client maintained the 'as is' sale position and refused any remediation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification Independent Ethical Failure By Engineer A
derived from principle: Passive Acquiescence Ethical Failure — Engineer A Going Along After Client Safety Refusal
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to actively insist that the client take corrective action on the electrical and mechanical code violations rather than passively proceeding with the structural engagement after merely informing the client of the deficiencies, because passive acquiescence after client notification constitutes an independent ethical failure.
sourcetext: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
temporalscope: After informing the client of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies and before completing the structural engagement
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: in his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.150673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Failure
type: Post-Client-OverridePublicSafetyEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Client As-Is Sale No Remediation Intent Active
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: Client declared the building would be sold 'as is' despite known electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied 60-year-old apartment building. Engineer A failed to assess or pursue any escalation to public authorities after this client override.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment — Engineer A After 'As Is' Sale Decision
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: After the client overrode Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation by declaring the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation, Engineer A was obligated to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently serious to require escalation to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to take such escalation steps — which the Board found were clearly warranted given the occupied building and identified code violations.
sourcetext: We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
temporalscope: After client's declaration of 'as is' sale and refusal to remediate
textreferences: We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.162857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A In Occupied Building Safety Context
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Building occupants exposed to injury risk
appliedto: Electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A recognized that electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied 60-year-old apartment building could cause injury to occupants, triggering the paramount public safety obligation that overrides the confidentiality agreement — but Engineer A failed to act on this obligation by not reporting to any third party
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The paramount public safety obligation required Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities and notify building occupants, notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement — the occupants' safety interest is the highest-priority obligation in the ethics code hierarchy
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation should have overridden the confidentiality agreement per the ethics code's public safety exception clause — Engineer A's failure to make this determination constitutes an ethical violation
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.150224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Confidentiality-Safety Conflict
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision to proceed with work after client refused to address electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board invokes the 'paramount' language of Section I.1. to establish that Engineer A's public safety obligation takes precedence over the confidentiality obligation of Section III.4., resolving the conflict between these two provisions in favor of safety disclosure.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The word 'paramount' in the Code is not merely aspirational — it is a structural hierarchy term that places public safety at the apex of the engineer's duties, overriding confidentiality when genuine safety risks are present.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence. The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount obligation overrides confidentiality obligation per Section I.1.'s explicit 'paramount' designation; the Code's own hierarchy resolves the conflict.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
textreferences: matters of public health and safety must take precedence
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.173132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal
type: ClientSafetyViolationInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Client As-Is Sale No Remediation Intent Active
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: The client made clear the building would be sold 'as is' with no remedial action. Engineer A did not insist on remediation and did not withdraw from the project, instead completing the structural report with only a brief mention of the deficiencies.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Withdrawal — Engineer A Obligation
derived from principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directive Violated By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or — if the client continued to refuse — to withdraw from the project rather than passively completing the structural report while known safety violations remained unaddressed.
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
temporalscope: After the client's 'as is' sale directive became clear and before completion of the structural report
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.150866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse Safety Code Violation Reporting
type: ConfidentialityAgreementNon-ExcuseforKnownSafetyCodeViolationReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
defeasible under: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report to Third Parties
prevails over: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
casecontext: Engineer A operated under a confidentiality agreement requiring his structural report to remain confidential. He used this agreement to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party, despite knowing those violations could injure occupants.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession — Engineer A's Contractual Confidentiality vs. Imminent Danger
derived from principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Violated By Engineer A
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:38:59.518980+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse for Known Safety Code Violation Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not excuse him from reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, because the NSPE Code's paramount public welfare obligation supersedes contractual confidentiality when safety code violations pose a risk of injury to building occupants.
sourcetext: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
temporalscope: Throughout the engagement and upon completion of the structural report
textreferences: Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.168953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Withdrawal — Engineer A Obligation
type: InsistenceonClientRemedialActionorProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's response to the client's refusal to address code violations in the occupied apartment building
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board establishes that Engineer A was obligated either to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before proceeding with the 'as is' sale, or to withdraw from the project entirely — the mere noting of the concern followed by passive continuation was insufficient.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The insistence obligation is active, not passive; the engineer must force the issue, not merely note it, and withdrawal is the required alternative when insistence fails.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation
sourcetext: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project. We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
tensionresolution: The insistence/withdrawal obligation takes precedence over the desire to maintain the client relationship or complete the engagement; the public safety paramount obligation requires active agency.
textreferences: The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired.
textreferences: Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
textreferences: the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.174532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Client As-Is Sale No Remediation Intent Active
type: ClientNon-ComplianceInsistenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From client's explicit statement through the end of the engagement
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Current occupants
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective buyers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
stateclass: Client Non-Compliance Insistence State
subject: Client's explicit declaration that no remedial action will be taken on any system prior to sale, despite known code violations that could injure occupants
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
triggeringevent: Client makes clear the building is being sold 'as is' with no planned remediation of any system
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.154543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report to Third Parties
type: ConfidentialityInstructionSuppressingSafetyReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From execution of the confidentiality agreement through Engineer A's final decision not to report
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Occupants
affectedparties: Regulatory authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:31:22.087445+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
stateclass: Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
subject: The contractual confidentiality agreement functioning as the operative reason Engineer A withholds the safety violation information from regulatory authorities and other third parties
terminatedby: Not terminated — Engineer A accepts the suppression and limits disclosure to a brief mention in the confidential report
textreferences: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
triggeringevent: Client's confidentiality instruction combined with client's explicit 'as-is' sale intent effectively suppresses Engineer A's safety reporting to third parties
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.166683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification Independent Ethical Failure By Engineer A
type: PassiveAcquiescenceAfterSafetyNotificationasIndependentEthicalFailure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client notification of electrical and mechanical deficiencies
appliedto: Non-reporting to third parties
appliedto: Structural report completion
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A informed the client of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies but then proceeded passively — making only a brief mention in his report and not reporting to any third party — constituting an independent ethical failure beyond the notification obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:37:05.727947+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer A's passive acquiescence after notifying the client — proceeding to complete and deliver the structural report without insisting on remediation or withdrawing — constitutes an independent ethical violation distinct from any failure to notify the client
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure
sourcetext: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
tensionresolution: The paramountcy of public safety required active insistence on remediation or project withdrawal — Engineer A's passive completion of the engagement after notification constitutes an independent ethical failure
textreferences: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.161648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment — Engineer A After 'As Is' Sale Decision
type: Post-Client-RefusalEscalationAssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's response to the client's 'as is' sale decision after code violations were identified
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: After the client indicated the building would be sold 'as is' despite the identified code violations, Engineer A was obligated to assess whether this refusal — combined with the nature of the safety risk to building occupants — triggered an obligation to escalate to appropriate authorities, rather than treating the client's decision as a complete discharge of professional obligation.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The client's refusal to address safety concerns is not the end of the engineer's professional obligation — it is the trigger for an escalation assessment that may require notification of authorities or withdrawal from the project.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
sourcetext: Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further. We believe under the facts, Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
tensionresolution: The escalation assessment obligation prevails; the client's refusal activates rather than terminates the engineer's public safety obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
textreferences: Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.174971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing — III.4 vs. II.1.a. vs. II.1.c.
type: CompetingCodeProvisionContextualBalancingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's dual obligations of confidentiality and public safety disclosure
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board engages in explicit cross-provision balancing of three Code sections — Section III.4 (confidentiality), Section II.1.c. (exception clause), and Section II.1.a. (public safety paramount) — holding that no section may be read in isolation and that the three provisions must be interpreted together to produce a coherent ethical obligation.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Code is a coherent normative system; apparent conflicts between provisions must be resolved through integrated reading that gives effect to the Code's hierarchy of values, not through mechanical application of any single provision.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
sourcetext: While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
tensionresolution: Integrated reading of III.4, II.1.c., and II.1.a. reveals that the confidentiality obligation contains a built-in exception for Code-required disclosures, and that the public safety paramount obligation constitutes such a Code-required disclosure, resolving the apparent conflict.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case
textreferences: Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
textreferences: no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.153097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer
type: Confidentiality-BoundPublicSafetyInactionEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Appropriate Authority Notification When Professional Judgment Overruled — Engineer A Obligation
adheres to principle: Code Exception Clause Activation — Section II.1.c. Releases Engineer A from Confidentiality
adheres to principle: Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing — III.4 vs. II.1.a. vs. II.1.c.
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession — Engineer A's Contractual Confidentiality vs. Imminent Danger
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Applied in Case 82-2 Contrast
adheres to principle: Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Withdrawal — Engineer A Obligation
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives — Engineer A Should Have Refused to Continue
adheres to principle: Passive Acquiescence Ethical Failure — Engineer A Going Along After Client Safety Refusal
adheres to principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment — Engineer A After 'As Is' Sale Decision
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Confidentiality-Safety Conflict
has obligation: Engineer A Going-Along After Client Safety Refusal Independent Ethical Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'duty_violated': 'NSPE Section I.1 paramount public safety obligation; Section II.1.a', 'duty_honored_incorrectly': 'NSPE Section III.4 and II.1.c confidentiality', 'failure_mode': 'Inaction — proceeded with work without escalating to appropriate authorities'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A received confidential information from the client during professional service delivery that implicated public safety. Rather than notifying appropriate authorities or refusing to proceed, Engineer A 'went along' and continued work, subordinating the paramount public safety obligation to client confidentiality. The Board found this conduct ethically impermissible under the Code.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:32:23.846172+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:32:23.846172+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'analogous_to', 'target': 'Engineer in Case 84-5 (Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer)'}
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_to_notify', 'target': 'Appropriate Public Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Client (Confidential Safety Information Transmitting Client)'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
textreferences: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
textreferences: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client
textreferences: His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code
textreferences: there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.155504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Passive Acquiescence Ethical Failure — Engineer A Going Along After Client Safety Refusal
type: PassiveAcquiescenceAfterSafetyNotificationasIndependentEthicalFailure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's conduct after discovering code violations and receiving client's 'as is' sale decision
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, after discovering electrical and mechanical code violations in the occupied apartment building and being told by the client the building would be sold 'as is,' proceeded with the professional engagement without insisting on remedial action, notifying appropriate authorities, or withdrawing — a passive 'going along' that the Board finds constitutes an independent ethical violation.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Passive continuation after a safety concern has been raised and rejected by the client is not a neutral act — it is an independent ethical failure because the 'paramount' public safety obligation requires active insistence and escalation, not mere acquiescence.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure
sourcetext: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
tensionresolution: The passive acquiescence prohibition overrides any claim that the engineer discharged obligations by noting the concern; the paramount safety obligation requires active agency.
textreferences: Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
textreferences: If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
textreferences: The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.174064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Appropriate Authority Notification When Professional Judgment Overruled — Engineer A Obligation
type: AppropriateAuthorityNotificationWhenProfessionalJudgmentOverruledonSafety
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's failure to notify appropriate regulatory authority after client's 'as is' sale decision overruled Engineer A's implicit safety judgment
balancingwith: Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession of Imminent Danger Disclosure Obligation
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board identifies notification of the appropriate authority as a specific step Engineer A was obligated to take — and failed to take — after the client refused to address the code violations, establishing that the engineer's paramount professional obligation includes notifying regulatory authorities when professional safety judgment has been overruled by the client.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: When a client's decision effectively overrules the engineer's professional safety judgment, the engineer's obligation does not end with the client relationship — it extends to notifying the authority with jurisdiction to protect the public from the identified safety risk.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Appropriate Authority Notification When Professional Judgment Overruled on Safety
sourcetext: We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
tensionresolution: The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.
textreferences: Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
textreferences: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.174769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer
type: Confidentiality-BoundStructuralSafetyDiscoveringEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Notification Obligation Partially Discharged By Engineer A Brief Mention
adheres to principle: Code Exception Clause Activation Obligation Failed By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Competence Boundary Recognition Partially Discharged By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Violated By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Principle Invoked By Engineer A Under Contractual Agreement
adheres to principle: Confidentiality Source-of-Information Distinction Applied To Client Voluntary Disclosure
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Misapplied By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Insistence on Remedial Action or Withdrawal Obligation Not Met By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directive Violated By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification Independent Ethical Failure By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Not Conducted By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A In Occupied Building Safety Context
adheres to principle: Scope-of-Work Limitation Invoked As Incomplete Defense By Engineer A
adheres to principle: Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Not Discharged By Engineer A
has obligation: Engineer A Appropriate Authority Notification After Client Safety Override Failure
has obligation: Engineer A As-Is Sale Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override
has obligation: Engineer A Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification
has obligation: Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal
has obligation: Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Competing Confidentiality Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing
has obligation: Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse Safety Code Violation Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Ethics Code Cross-Provision Non-Vacuum Reading Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Faithful Agent Role Misapplication to Confidentiality Absolutism
has obligation: Engineer A Going-Along After Client Safety Refusal Independent Ethical Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Occupied Building Electrical Mechanical Violation Occupant Escalation
has obligation: Engineer A Out-of-Discipline Electrical Mechanical Code Violation Public Authority Reporting
has obligation: Engineer A Paramount Safety Word Supremacy Hierarchy Non-Recognition
has obligation: Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Assessment
has obligation: Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Failure
has obligation: Engineer A Scope of Work Non-Shield Electrical Mechanical Safety Disclosure
has obligation: Engineer A Section II.1.c. Exception Clause Non-Activation Violation
has obligation: Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
has obligation: Engineer A Tenant Occupant Direct Notification Electrical Mechanical Violations
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'confidentiality_agreement': True, 'out_of_specialty_discovery': 'Electrical and mechanical code violations', 'action_taken': 'Informed client verbally; noted in report; did not escalate to authorities'}
caseinvolvement: Retained under a confidentiality agreement to assess structural integrity of a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'; determines the building is structurally sound but learns from the client of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to occupants; informs the client verbally and notes the conversation briefly in the report but does not report the safety violations to any third party or authority.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:30:37.537826+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:30:37.537826+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'owes_duty_to', 'target': 'Building Occupants'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves_client', 'target': 'Building Owner Client'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
textreferences: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building
textreferences: Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
textreferences: Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound
textreferences: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
textreferences: the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.153312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction

Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Appropriate Authority Notification After Client Safety Override Failure
competes with: Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal
competes with: Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Failure
competes with: Engineer A Competing Confidentiality Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing
competes with: Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse Safety Code Violation Reporting
competes with: Engineer A Faithful Agent Role Misapplication to Confidentiality Absolutism
competes with: Engineer A Occupied Building Electrical Mechanical Violation Occupant Escalation
competes with: Engineer A Out-of-Discipline Electrical Mechanical Code Violation Public Authority Reporting
competes with: Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure
competes with: Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Failure
competes with: Engineer A Tenant Occupant Direct Notification Electrical Mechanical Violations
defeasible under: Confidentiality Obligation vs. Occupant Safety Competing Duties
defeasible under: Engineer A Code-Based Confidentiality Exception Activation
defeasible under: Engineer A Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Competing Duties
defeasible under: Engineer A Paramount Safety Obligation Notification Duty
defeasible under: Out-of-Scope Code Violation Disclosure in Occupied Building Sale
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk from Known Code Violations in Occupied Building
casecontext: Client directly disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A during a structural assessment engagement conducted under a confidentiality agreement for a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Confidentiality Principle Engaged by Client Transmission to Engineer A
derived from principle: Confidentiality Source-of-Information Distinction Applied To Client Voluntary Disclosure
discoveredincase: 84
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 84
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Section III.4 Confidentiality Client-Transmitted Information Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was fully engaged because the electrical and mechanical deficiency information was directly and voluntarily transmitted by the client during the professional engagement, creating a heightened confidentiality expectation that had to be weighed — but not treated as absolute — against the paramount public safety obligation.
sourcetext: In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer. However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of client-transmitted confidential safety information during the professional engagement
textreferences: In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer. However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case.
wasattributedto: Case 84 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T13:56:58.175656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 84 Extraction