Alternative Design Recognized Post-Accident
Engineer T now possesses knowledge that an alternative design existed; the 'no alternative was available' defense is no longer available; Engineer T's professional self-assessment is now informed by concrete recognition of a missed opportunity; the ethical question of error acknowledgment becomes live and urgent
Post-accident, during Engineer T's site revisit
Following the accident, during Engineer T's site visit, Engineer T recognized that an alternative, though more complex and costly, design approach existed that could have allowed safer construction conditions. This recognition occurred only after the injury had already taken place.
Attorney Guidance on Deposition Conduct and Error Characterization
XYZ Consulting Engineers' legal counsel and insurance company attorneys
Legal counsel guidance on engineer deposition obligations
Both of XYZ Consulting Engineers' attorneys agreed that a clear obligation existed not to distort or alter any facts, and that Engineer T should respond to questions with complete transparency during the deposition.
Engineer T should clearly report the facts, but should not voluntarily characterize the design work as an error.
one of the purposes of the legal process was to determine what errors might have been made and by whom
Engineer T during deposition preparation
XYZ's attorneys provided guidance distinguishing between the obligation to report facts transparently and the obligation to voluntarily characterize design work as an error, and clarifying that the legal process — not the engineer — determines whether an error was made.
BER Case 02-5 where a third Engineer A, a structural engineer with experience in the design of structures in the region in which the current project is located, designed a structural system that Engineer A believed was sound and met applicable codes
But as in Case 02-5, the BER does not view Engineer T's design as unethical
The key finding from Case 02-5 was that engineers cannot be expected (obligated) to incorporate each and every new, innovative technique until such techniques are incorporated into generally accepted practice and become standards that should be followed
BER in analogical reasoning about Engineer T's design choices and the standard of care
Referenced as precedent establishing that engineers cannot be ethically obligated to incorporate each and every new innovative technique until such techniques are incorporated into generally accepted practice and become standards; used to support the conclusion that Engineer T's design was not unethical even though an alternative approach existed
BER Case 21-2, where a second Engineer A serves as a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a healthcare facility
The key finding from Case 21-2 is that the public welfare was best served by Engineer A reporting the public health, safety, and welfare concerns
the BER found that 'if Engineer A is reasonably certain that the project will result in adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare, and if the Client B denies the requisite evaluation, Engineer A should include the concern regarding potential adverse public health, safety, and welfare impacts in an engineering report'
BER in analogical reasoning about Engineer T's opportunity (not obligation) to more fully consider alternative design approaches and engage construction safety professionals
Referenced as precedent establishing that when an engineer is reasonably certain a project will result in adverse public health, safety, and welfare impacts and the client denies requisite evaluation, the engineer should include the concern in an engineering report for regulatory and public consideration; used to distinguish cases where a project delivery process exists for safety responsibility transfer
BER Case 97-13 introduces Engineer A, a civil engineer, who serves as a subconsultant to perform bridge inspection services
As with Engineer A in Case 97-13, the fact that Engineer T (this present case) noticed after the accident that an alternative design approach could have prevented the worker injury does not mean that Engineer T was required to report this as an error
The key finding from Case 97-13 is that the public welfare was best served by Engineer A exercising restraint in reporting
BER in analogical reasoning about Engineer T's obligation to report or acknowledge a design concern
Referenced as precedent for the principle that an engineer who identifies a safety risk outside their scope of work may appropriately exercise restraint in formal reporting, relying on verbal notification to the client rather than formal public reporting, when the information is speculative and not fully evaluated
CausalLink_Constrained Access Notation in
CausalLink_Factual Deposition Testimony W
CausalLink_Joint Error Determination with
CausalLink_Post-Accident Error Self-Asses
CausalLink_Pre-Deposition Disclosure Stra
CausalLink_Straightforward Design Approac
Civil Engineering Education Construction Safety Curriculum Standard
Engineering education institutions and accreditation bodies
Standard civil engineering educational curriculum regarding construction safety
civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety
Engineer B in evaluating whether Engineer T's design constituted a professional error
Referenced as establishing that civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety training, grounding the argument that Engineer T could not reasonably have known or assessed the worker safety risk.
It was ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude no error had been made in design, based on review and analysis of the facts from both from a legal/contractual perspective and from an ethical perspective.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer T and Engineer B ethically concluded no design error had been made, the analysis reveals a meaningful distinction between the absence of a technical error and the presence of a missed professional opportunity. The Board's conclusion that no error occurred is grounded in the standard of care — Engineer T selected a recognized, straightforward structural approach, documented the constrained-access condition, and operated within the contractual scope. However, the post-accident recognition that a functionally equivalent, safer alternative design existed is not ethically neutral simply because it falls outside the error threshold. The NSPE Code's paramount obligation to hold public safety paramount imposes an affirmative, not merely reactive, duty on engineers in responsible charge. A design that is technically compliant with the standard of care may nonetheless fall short of the Code's aspirational safety standard if foreseeable construction worker risk — explicitly flagged in the design documents themselves — was not subjected to even a preliminary exploration of safer alternatives. The Board's conclusion that no error was made should therefore be understood as a floor determination, not a ceiling endorsement of Engineer T's design process.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B's dismissal of Engineer T's error concern was ethically sound does not fully account for the structural conflict of interest embedded in that determination. Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer of XYZ Consulting Engineers, had an institutional stake in the outcome of the error characterization: an acknowledgment of error by Engineer T would directly expose XYZ to heightened legal and financial liability. The Board treated Engineer B's reasoning — that Engineer T was not trained in construction safety, that the contractor bore responsibility for construction means and methods, and that the scope did not require alternative concept exploration — as legitimate professional judgment. While each of those rationales has independent merit, the fact that they were advanced by a supervisor whose firm's interests were directly served by a 'no error' determination introduces a conflict of interest that the Board did not examine. Under the NSPE Code's faithful agent obligation, Engineer B owed a duty to Engineer T and to the profession, not merely to XYZ's legal position. A more ethically rigorous process would have involved an independent peer review of Engineer T's concern — by a disinterested senior engineer outside XYZ — rather than resolution by a supervisor with an undisclosed institutional interest in the outcome. The absence of that independent review does not render the 'no error' conclusion wrong, but it does undermine its ethical legitimacy as a process.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer T ethically refrained from acknowledging an error after the accident is sound as far as it goes, but it leaves unaddressed a distinct forward-looking obligation that arose at the moment Engineer T recognized that a safer alternative design existed. The post-accident recognition was not merely a legal or litigation-relevant fact — it was a professionally significant finding with implications for future projects involving constrained-access structural connections. The NSPE Code's obligation to accept personal responsibility for professional activities, read alongside the paramount duty to protect public safety, supports the conclusion that Engineer T had an independent ethical obligation to formally document the post-accident recognition within XYZ Consulting Engineers' internal quality management or lessons-learned systems. This obligation exists entirely independently of the legal proceedings and is not foreclosed by the 'no error' determination. The failure to explore alternative design concepts in constrained-access conditions is precisely the kind of practice-level insight that professional responsibility systems are designed to capture and disseminate. The Board's silence on this forward-looking obligation represents a gap in its analysis that, if left unaddressed, allows a safety-relevant professional insight to be absorbed entirely into the litigation record rather than into the profession's institutional memory.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer T ethically refrained from volunteering an error acknowledgment during the deposition is defensible under the principle that the legal process — not the individual engineer — bears institutional responsibility for determining fault. However, this conclusion creates an unresolved tension with NSPE Code provision III.1.a, which imposes an affirmative obligation to acknowledge errors that operates independently of whether one is directly asked. The attorneys' guidance that Engineer T should respond factually but not voluntarily characterize the design as an error is legally prudent, but it does not automatically satisfy the Code's ethical standard. The Code does not condition the error acknowledgment obligation on a direct interrogatory prompt. If Engineer T privately held a belief — even a tentative one — that a professional error may have been made, the Code's affirmative acknowledgment duty arguably required Engineer T to surface that belief in the deposition, not as a legal concession, but as a truthful professional statement. The Board's conclusion that no error was made resolves this tension retrospectively, but it does so by importing the substantive 'no error' determination into the procedural question of what Engineer T was obligated to disclose. The more rigorous analysis would separate these questions: even if the ultimate determination is 'no error,' an engineer who privately believes an error may have occurred has an independent Code obligation to disclose that belief when testifying under oath, subject to the constraint that the belief must be grounded in fact rather than hindsight speculation.
The Board's three conclusions collectively treat Engineer T's competence boundary in construction safety as a complete ethical defense against the claim that a design error was made. While the Board is correct that civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety training and that Engineer T lacked specific contractor-side experience, this competence boundary argument has a structural limitation that the Board did not address: Engineer T's own design documents explicitly flagged the constrained-access condition. The act of notating a known constraint in construction documents is not ethically neutral — it is a professional acknowledgment that the condition exists and is significant enough to warrant disclosure. An engineer who recognizes and documents a condition that creates foreseeable worker difficulty, but who then relies on a claimed competence boundary to avoid any further inquiry into whether that condition poses a safety risk, is using the competence limitation selectively. The NSPE Code's competence obligation cuts in both directions: it prohibits engineers from practicing outside their competence, but it also obligates engineers who recognize the limits of their competence to seek assistance from specialists. The more complete ethical analysis would ask whether Engineer T, having documented the constrained-access condition, had an obligation under Code provision I.2 to consult a construction safety specialist or to solicit a constructability review from the contractor before finalizing the design — not as a matter of contractual scope, but as a matter of professional responsibility to hold public safety paramount.
Across all three of the Board's conclusions, a virtue ethics dimension remains entirely unexamined. Engineer T initially demonstrated moral courage by raising the error concern with Engineer B — an act that exposed Engineer T to professional and institutional pressure and that reflected genuine internalization of the Code's ethical obligations. Engineer T's subsequent deference to Engineer B's dismissal, and later to the attorneys' deposition guidance, represents a progressive attenuation of that initial moral agency. The Board's conclusions validate each step of that attenuation as ethically permissible, but they do not ask whether the cumulative effect — an engineer who privately believed an error may have been made, deferred to a conflicted supervisor, and then remained silent throughout a legal deposition — constitutes a coherent expression of professional integrity. From a virtue ethics perspective, the relevant question is not only whether each individual decision was defensible in isolation, but whether the pattern of decisions reflects the character of an engineer who holds public safety paramount as a genuine professional commitment rather than as a formal compliance obligation. The Board's framework, focused on discrete acts and Code provisions, is not well-suited to capture this longitudinal integrity question. A more complete ethical analysis would recognize that Engineer T's initial moral instinct was professionally sound, that the institutional pressures that overrode it were real but not ethically dispositive, and that the profession is better served by engineers who maintain independent ethical judgment under institutional pressure than by engineers who defer sequentially to supervisors and attorneys.
It was ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred because there was no error.
In response to Q101: Engineer T did not have a clearly enforceable contractual or standard-of-care obligation to solicit a constructability or construction safety review from the contractor or a safety specialist before finalizing the design. However, from an ethical standpoint grounded in the principle of holding public safety paramount, the explicit notation of constrained access in the design drawings created a morally significant trigger. When a design engineer documents a condition that foreseeably complicates construction worker access, that notation is not merely a technical disclosure — it is an implicit acknowledgment of a hazard. The NSPE Code's mandate to hold safety paramount (I.1) arguably required Engineer T to at minimum consider whether the flagged constraint posed a foreseeable worker safety risk, even if formal consultation was not contractually required. The fact that Engineer T lacked training in construction safety (a recognized competence boundary) does not fully extinguish this obligation; rather, it reinforces that the appropriate response to a recognized knowledge gap is to seek expert input, not to proceed without it. Had Engineer T solicited even informal input from the general contractor regarding the constructability of the constrained connection, the ethical and potentially legal determination of whether an error was made would have shifted materially. The failure to do so represents a missed ethical opportunity, though the Board correctly declined to characterize it as a formal code violation given the standard-of-care context.
In response to Q102: Engineer B's dismissal of Engineer T's ethical concern is analytically compromised by a structural conflict of interest that the Board's conclusions do not adequately surface. Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer of XYZ Consulting Engineers, had an institutional stake in the outcome of the error determination: acknowledging an error would expose XYZ to heightened legal and financial liability. The reasoning Engineer B offered — that Engineer T was not trained in construction safety, that the contractor had not raised concerns, and that the scope did not require alternative concept exploration — is not implausible on its merits. However, the same reasoning served XYZ's legal defense interests precisely and completely. When the person empowered to make the institutional error determination is also the person whose employer benefits most directly from a 'no error' finding, the legitimacy of that determination as an independent ethical judgment is weakened. The NSPE Code's requirement that engineers act as faithful agents (I.4) does not authorize supervisors to suppress legitimate ethical concerns raised by subordinates when doing so serves institutional self-interest over professional accountability. The Board's conclusion that the joint 'no error' determination was ethical (Conclusion 1) would be more defensible had it been reached through a process insulated from XYZ's liability exposure — for example, through independent peer review or ethics consultation. As rendered, the determination conflates legal defense strategy with ethical analysis, and Engineer T's deference to Engineer B's judgment, while understandable, represents a compromise of the independent ethical judgment that the Code implicitly demands.
In response to Q103: The NSPE Code does not explicitly impose a proactive obligation on Engineer T to inform the injured construction worker or the general public about the post-accident recognition that a safer alternative design existed. However, Code provision I.1 — holding public safety paramount — and provision II.3.a — being objective and truthful in professional statements — together create a conditional obligation: if Engineer T were to make any public or professional statement about the accident or the design, that statement would need to be complete and not misleading by omission. The more pressing ethical question is whether Engineer T's silence itself constitutes a material omission that harms the injured worker's ability to seek accountability. On balance, the legal process serves as the appropriate mechanism for surfacing this information, and Engineer T's factual transparency during the deposition satisfies the disclosure obligation in that context. There is no freestanding NSPE Code obligation to proactively contact an injured third party outside of legal proceedings. However, if Engineer T were asked by any professional body, peer, or public forum about the design, the ethical obligation to be objective and truthful (II.3.a) would require disclosure of the post-accident recognition, not merely the pre-accident design rationale. The Board's conclusions implicitly accept this boundary by affirming deposition transparency as sufficient, but they do not foreclose a broader disclosure obligation in non-litigation professional contexts.
In response to Q104: When Engineer T recognized post-accident that a safer alternative design approach existed, that recognition created a distinct, forward-looking ethical obligation that is entirely separable from the legal proceedings and the error-acknowledgment debate. Code provision III.8 — accepting personal responsibility for professional activities — and the broader professional norm of continuous improvement together support the conclusion that Engineer T had an affirmative obligation to formally document the post-accident insight within XYZ Consulting Engineers' quality management or lessons-learned systems. This obligation does not require Engineer T to characterize the original design as an error; it requires only that the recognition of a safer alternative be preserved and communicated so that future structural engineers at XYZ — and potentially the profession more broadly — can benefit from the insight. The failure to pursue this documentation path is a genuine ethical gap that the Board's conclusions do not address. The Board found that Engineer T's situation represented a 'missed opportunity' rather than a code violation, but that framing applies to the pre-accident design phase. The post-accident lessons-learned obligation is prospective and does not depend on resolving the backward-looking error question. Suppressing the insight entirely — whether due to litigation caution or institutional inertia — would conflict with the professional accountability norm embedded in Code provision III.8 and would perpetuate the very knowledge gap (construction safety awareness in structural design) that contributed to the accident.
In response to Q201: A genuine and unresolved tension exists between the principle of Deposition Truthfulness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization and the Error Acknowledgment Obligation under Code provision III.1.a. The Board resolved this tension by accepting the attorneys' framing — that whether an error occurred is a legal determination, not a unilateral professional self-assessment — and by noting that Engineer T was never directly asked about a possible error during the deposition. This resolution is defensible but incomplete. Code provision III.1.a does not condition the error acknowledgment obligation on being asked; it states that engineers 'shall acknowledge their errors.' If Engineer T privately held a belief that a professional error may have been made — a belief strong enough to prompt a meeting with Engineer B and an explicit invocation of the NSPE Code — then the deposition created a context in which that belief was directly relevant to the proceedings, even if no question directly elicited it. The attorneys' guidance to respond factually but not to volunteer error characterization is legally sound and practically reasonable, but it does not fully satisfy the ethical obligation if Engineer T's subjective belief in a possible error was genuine and material. The tension is not resolved by the Board's conclusions; it is managed. A more complete ethical resolution would have required Engineer T to either (a) reach a genuine, reasoned conviction that no error occurred before the deposition — not merely defer to Engineer B and the attorneys — or (b) find a way to disclose the earlier concern factually without characterizing it as a legal admission. The Board's conclusions implicitly accept option (a) but do not verify that Engineer T's conviction was independently reached.
In response to Q202: The conflict between Loyalty to Employer Institutional Position and the Public Welfare Paramount principle is real and structurally embedded in this case in a way the Board's conclusions understate. Engineer B's dismissal of Engineer T's error concern was framed as a professional judgment about scope, competence, and standard of care — all legitimate considerations. But the dismissal also functioned to protect XYZ Consulting Engineers from a voluntary acknowledgment that would have been highly damaging in the pending litigation. The NSPE Code's hierarchy places public safety paramount (I.1) above loyalty to employer (I.4), and Code provision III.8 requires engineers to accept personal responsibility for their professional activities. When Engineer B exercised supervisory authority to override Engineer T's ethical concern, and when that override aligned perfectly with XYZ's institutional legal interests, the Code's hierarchy was effectively inverted: employer loyalty displaced public welfare accountability. The Board's conclusion that the joint 'no error' determination was ethical (Conclusion 1) does not engage with this structural inversion. A more complete analysis would require examining whether Engineer B's reasoning would have been the same absent XYZ's liability exposure — a counterfactual the Board does not address. The ethical legitimacy of the determination depends not only on whether the reasoning was facially sound, but on whether it was reached through a process free from the distorting influence of institutional self-interest.
In response to Q203: The tension between the Standard of Care as Ethical Floor and the Public Welfare Paramount principle is the deepest unresolved ethical issue in this case. The Board's conclusions rest substantially on the premise that Engineer T met the applicable standard of care — a legal and professional benchmark defined by what a reasonably competent engineer in the same circumstances would have done. Meeting that standard is treated as ethically sufficient. However, Code provision I.1 does not say engineers shall hold public safety paramount 'within the standard of care'; it states the obligation categorically. The standard of care is a legal construct that reflects average professional practice, not the ethical ceiling of what the Code demands. When a design engineer selects an approach that foreseeably creates constrained, contorted working conditions for construction workers — and documents that constraint explicitly — the question of whether a more safety-conscious alternative was explored is not merely a standard-of-care question. It is a public welfare question. The Board's implicit acceptance that meeting the standard of care satisfies I.1 conflates the legal floor with the ethical standard. A more rigorous analysis would acknowledge that the Code may demand more than average practice when foreseeable, serious physical harm to workers is at stake, even if that higher standard is not yet reflected in the prevailing standard of care. The Board's finding of a 'missed opportunity' gestures toward this gap but declines to close it, leaving the ethical tension unresolved.
In response to Q204: The tension between Contractual Risk Transfer and Professional Accountability is particularly acute in this case because Engineer T did not merely rely on a general contractual allocation of construction safety responsibility to the contractor — Engineer T's own design documents explicitly flagged the constrained-access condition that created the hazard. This distinction matters ethically. Standard contractual provisions (such as those in EJCDC C-700) allocate construction means, methods, and worker safety to the contractor on the assumption that the design does not create foreseeable, documented hazards that the contractor is then expected to manage without warning. When the design engineer documents a constraint that directly affects worker access and safety, the contractual transfer of safety responsibility becomes ethically strained: the engineer has effectively identified the hazard and then disclaimed responsibility for its consequences. Code provision I.1 and the principle of professional accountability (III.8) together suggest that identifying a foreseeable safety condition in design documents creates at minimum an obligation to consider whether the condition rises to the level of a safety risk requiring design modification or explicit safety communication beyond a notation. The Board's conclusions accept the contractual transfer as ethically sufficient, but do not engage with the specific ethical significance of Engineer T having documented the constraint. A more complete analysis would distinguish between generic contractual safety transfers and cases where the design engineer has affirmatively identified the specific condition that later causes harm.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer T did not fully satisfy the categorical duty to hold public safety paramount under Code provision I.1. Deontological ethics — particularly in its Kantian formulation — requires that duties be discharged not merely when convenient or when contractually required, but as a matter of principle regardless of cost or complexity. The duty to hold public safety paramount is not qualified by standard-of-care limitations, contractual allocations, or the absence of explicit client requests for alternative design exploration. Engineer T selected the first viable design approach without systematically examining whether alternative configurations would reduce foreseeable construction worker risk. The explicit notation of constrained access in the design documents demonstrates that Engineer T was aware of the condition — awareness that, under a strict deontological reading, triggers a duty to act on that awareness in a safety-protective direction. The fact that the alternative approach was more costly and time-consuming does not, under deontological reasoning, justify foregoing it when worker safety is at stake. The Board's conclusions implicitly apply a consequentialist or standard-of-care framework to what the Code frames as a categorical obligation, and in doing so, they soften a duty that the Code states without qualification. The deontological analysis supports the Board's 'missed opportunity' characterization but suggests the ethical weight of that missed opportunity is greater than the Board's conclusions acknowledge.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the outcome of a seriously and permanently injured construction worker provides strong evidence that the design decision — selecting the constrained approach without exploring alternatives — produced a worse aggregate outcome than the available alternative would have. Consequentialist ethics evaluates the ethical quality of decisions at least partly by reference to their foreseeable consequences, and the injury was a foreseeable consequence of a design that required workers to make connections in a contorted fashion in a tightly constrained space. The Board's conclusion that no error was made does not engage with the consequentialist dimension: it focuses on process (what a reasonable engineer would have done) rather than outcome (what actually happened and what could have been prevented). A consequentialist analysis would not automatically conclude that an error was made — it would ask whether the expected value of exploring alternatives, weighted by the probability and severity of worker injury, exceeded the cost of that exploration. Given that the injury was serious and permanent, and that the alternative design was functionally equivalent (merely more costly and time-consuming), the consequentialist calculus likely favors the conclusion that the failure to explore alternatives was ethically suboptimal, even if not a formal code violation. The Board's 'missed opportunity' finding is more consistent with consequentialist reasoning than with the deontological framing of the Code's public safety mandate, and the Board does not acknowledge this analytical tension.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer T demonstrated genuine professional integrity and moral courage in the initial phase — recognizing a potential ethical obligation, raising it explicitly with a superior, and invoking the NSPE Code by name. These are the actions of an engineer who takes professional accountability seriously and who does not reflexively defer to institutional convenience. However, Engineer T's subsequent complete deference to Engineer B's dismissal — without seeking independent ethical review, consulting the NSPE ethics hotline, or pursuing any alternative avenue for resolving the ethical concern — represents a meaningful compromise of that initial integrity. Virtue ethics evaluates character as expressed through consistent patterns of action, not single moments. An engineer of fully realized professional virtue would not abandon a sincerely held ethical concern simply because a supervisor with an institutional stake in the outcome disagreed. The virtuous response would have been to seek independent ethical guidance — from NSPE, from a trusted peer outside XYZ, or from a professional ethics resource — before accepting Engineer B's determination as final. Engineer T's deference may be understandable given the power dynamics of the employer-employee relationship, but it does not reflect the moral courage that virtue ethics demands of professionals who hold public safety obligations. The Board's conclusions do not address this character dimension, focusing instead on the outcome of the error determination rather than the process by which Engineer T arrived at acquiescence.
In response to Q304: Code provision III.1.a states that engineers 'shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.' The provision does not condition the acknowledgment obligation on being directly asked whether an error occurred. Read literally and deontologically, the obligation is affirmative and self-initiating: if an engineer believes an error was made, the Code requires acknowledgment regardless of whether the legal process or any other party elicits that acknowledgment. Engineer T's deposition conduct — responding factually to all questions but not volunteering the earlier belief that a professional error may have been made — satisfies the 'shall not distort or alter the facts' component of III.1.a but does not clearly satisfy the 'shall acknowledge their errors' component, if Engineer T genuinely believed an error had occurred. The attorneys' guidance that Engineer T should not voluntarily characterize the design as an error is legally sound and reflects the appropriate role of the legal process in determining fault. However, it does not resolve the ethical question of whether III.1.a operates independently of the legal process. The Board's conclusion that Engineer T's deposition conduct was ethical (Conclusion 3) implicitly resolves this tension by accepting that the joint 'no error' determination meant there was no error to acknowledge — but that resolution depends entirely on the legitimacy of the 'no error' determination, which is itself compromised by the conflict-of-interest concerns identified in Q102. If the 'no error' determination was influenced by institutional self-interest rather than independent ethical judgment, then the deposition silence cannot be fully justified by reference to it.
In response to Q401: Had Engineer T solicited a constructability and construction safety review from the general contractor or a construction safety specialist before finalizing the design documents, the probability is high that the constrained-access connection detail would have been identified as a foreseeable worker safety risk. Contractors routinely assess constructability as part of their pre-construction planning, and a structural connection requiring workers to operate in a contorted fashion in a tightly constrained space is precisely the type of condition that experienced construction personnel would flag. Such a consultation would have created a documented record of the safety concern being raised and considered — a record that would have materially altered both the ethical and legal analysis. Ethically, it would have demonstrated that Engineer T fulfilled the public safety paramount obligation (I.1) by actively seeking to identify and mitigate foreseeable worker risks, even if the ultimate design decision remained the same. Legally, it would have shifted the question from whether Engineer T should have known about the risk to whether Engineer T adequately responded to known risk. The absence of this consultation is therefore not merely a procedural gap; it is the specific omission that makes the ethical determination ambiguous and the legal exposure real. The Board's 'missed opportunity' finding is most precisely located here: not in the failure to choose the alternative design, but in the failure to create the conditions under which an informed choice between design approaches could have been made.
In response to Q402: Had Engineer T presented the client with both the straightforward constrained-access design approach and the more complex, safer alternative approach at the outset — with explicit disclosure of the construction safety tradeoffs — the Board's ethical analysis would almost certainly have been more favorable, and Engineer T's duty to hold public safety paramount would have been more clearly satisfied. This counterfactual illuminates the precise ethical gap in the actual case: the client was never given the opportunity to make an informed choice between a less costly, faster approach with higher worker safety risk and a more costly, slower approach with lower worker safety risk. The NSPE Code's public safety mandate (I.1) does not require engineers to always select the safest possible design regardless of cost; it requires that safety be held paramount in the decision-making process. Presenting both options to the client — with full transparency about the safety implications — would have fulfilled that mandate by ensuring that the safety tradeoff was consciously evaluated rather than implicitly foreclosed by the engineer's unilateral selection of the first viable approach. The Board's conclusions do not address this dimension of the case, focusing instead on whether Engineer T's chosen approach met the standard of care. A more complete ethical analysis would recognize that the public safety paramount obligation includes an obligation to surface foreseeable safety tradeoffs for client consideration, particularly when the engineer has documented the relevant constraint in the design documents.
In response to Q403: Had Engineer T independently and proactively disclosed during the deposition — without being asked — the earlier personal belief that a professional error may have been made in not exploring alternative design concepts, that disclosure would have represented a more complete fulfillment of the affirmative acknowledgment component of Code provision III.1.a, but it would have introduced significant complications. First, it would have substituted Engineer T's subjective, pre-resolution self-assessment for the considered joint determination reached with Engineer B — a determination that, whatever its limitations, was reached through a deliberate professional process. Second, it would have potentially undermined the legal process's role in determining fault by introducing a unilateral professional admission that the legal system had not yet evaluated. Third, it would have conflicted with the attorneys' guidance, which was itself grounded in a legitimate reading of the engineer's obligations. However, the disclosure would not have been ethically improper if Engineer T genuinely and independently believed — after the conversation with Engineer B and the pre-deposition preparation — that an error had been made. The ethical problem is not that Engineer T remained silent; it is that the record does not clearly establish whether Engineer T's silence reflected a genuine, independently reached conviction that no error occurred, or a pragmatic deference to institutional and legal pressures. If the former, the silence was ethically appropriate. If the latter, it represents a compromise of the integrity that III.1.a demands. The Board's conclusions assume the former without verifying it.
In response to Q404: Had Engineer B agreed with Engineer T's initial assessment that a professional error had been made in not exploring alternative, safer design concepts, and had XYZ Consulting Engineers proactively acknowledged that error before the lawsuit was filed, the ethical standing of both engineers under the NSPE Code would have been substantially stronger. Code provision III.1.a's acknowledgment obligation would have been fulfilled affirmatively and voluntarily — the highest form of compliance with that provision. Code provision III.8's personal responsibility mandate would have been honored. The public safety paramount obligation (I.1) would have been demonstrated through action rather than defended through argument. From a legal perspective, the consequences are more complex. Proactive acknowledgment of a professional error before litigation is filed can be interpreted as an admission of liability, potentially waiving defenses and increasing damages exposure. However, some jurisdictions and professional liability frameworks distinguish between acknowledgment of a professional judgment call and admission of negligence, and proactive disclosure sometimes results in more favorable settlement outcomes. More importantly for the ethical analysis, the NSPE Code does not condition the acknowledgment obligation on legal convenience. The fact that proactive acknowledgment would have been legally costly does not make it ethically optional. The Board's conclusions, by validating the 'no error' determination, effectively reward the outcome that served XYZ's legal interests and do not engage with the question of what the Code would have required had the error determination gone the other way. This gap leaves the relationship between the Code's acknowledgment obligation and legal self-interest unresolved.
It was ethical for Engineer T to refrain from acknowledging an error during the deposition because there was no error.
The tension between Public Welfare Paramount and Standard of Care as Ethical Floor was resolved in this case by treating the minimum standard of care as ethically sufficient, but that resolution is incomplete. The Board accepted that Engineer T met the prevailing professional standard — noting constrained access in drawings, relying on the contractor's contractual responsibility for construction safety, and operating within recognized competence boundaries — and concluded this was enough to defeat an error finding. However, this resolution implicitly subordinates the affirmative, forward-looking duty to hold public safety paramount to the defensive, backward-looking question of whether a minimum threshold was crossed. The case teaches that when a design engineer explicitly documents a foreseeable physical hazard in construction documents — as Engineer T did by noting constrained access — that notation itself is evidence of awareness, and awareness triggers a heightened, not merely baseline, obligation to consider whether the hazard could be mitigated through design. Meeting the standard of care may be necessary to avoid a finding of professional error, but it is not always sufficient to fully satisfy the paramount public safety obligation under Code provision I.1. The two principles operate on different planes: standard of care defines the legal and professional floor; public welfare paramount defines an ethical ceiling that the floor does not automatically reach.
The tension between Loyalty to Employer Institutional Position and Error Acknowledgment Obligation was not fully resolved by the Board — it was dissolved by accepting Engineer B's framing as authoritative. Engineer T initially exercised independent professional judgment and concluded that a professional error — specifically, the failure to explore alternative, safer design concepts — had been made and required acknowledgment under the NSPE Code. Engineer B, whose institution carried direct legal and financial exposure, dismissed that concern. The Board validated the joint 'no error' determination without examining whether Engineer B's institutional self-interest constituted a conflict of interest that should have prompted Engineer T to seek an independent, disinterested professional opinion rather than simply defer. This resolution teaches a troubling prioritization: supervisory authority within a firm, even when that authority is exercised by a party with a material stake in the outcome, can effectively extinguish an individual engineer's independently formed ethical concern. A more principled resolution would have required Engineer T to either obtain an independent peer review of the error question or formally document the dissenting concern within XYZ's quality management system, thereby preserving the integrity of the error acknowledgment obligation without unilaterally overriding the firm's legal position. The case thus reveals that Loyalty to Employer Institutional Position, when exercised through supervisory dismissal of a safety-related ethical concern, can functionally suppress the Error Acknowledgment Obligation in ways the Code does not explicitly sanction.
The tension between Deposition Truthfulness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization and the Error Acknowledgment Obligation was resolved by the Board through a principled but narrow reading of Code provision III.1.a — treating the duty to acknowledge errors as contingent on a prior, settled determination that an error actually occurred, rather than as an independent, proactive disclosure obligation. The attorneys' guidance that the legal process, not Engineer T, would determine whether an error was made provided a procedurally coherent rationale: Engineer T reported all facts transparently, was not asked about error characterization, and did not distort or suppress any factual matter. However, this resolution leaves an important principle tension unaddressed: Code provision III.1.a states that engineers 'shall acknowledge their errors,' which is framed as an affirmative duty, not merely a reactive one triggered by a direct question. Engineer T privately held a belief — formed before legal proceedings began and before attorney guidance was received — that a professional error may have been made. That belief was never retracted on the merits; it was superseded by institutional and legal process considerations. The case teaches that when an engineer's sincere, pre-litigation professional judgment about error is subsequently managed through legal counsel's deposition strategy, the Deposition Truthfulness principle and the Error Acknowledgment Obligation do not fully converge — they operate in parallel tracks that the Board's analysis treats as compatible but which, under a stricter deontological reading of III.1.a, may remain in unresolved tension. The resolution adopted is pragmatically defensible but not the only ethically coherent one available.
Constrained Access Notation in Documents
Senior Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers
Notation alone does not eliminate or mitigate the hazard
Workers would be required to perform connections in physically contorted and potentially dangerous conditions
Adherence to standard professional practice of notating known conditions
Disclosure of known site conditions to contractor
Documentation transparency regarding design constraints
Contractual allocation of construction safety responsibility to contractor
Standard professional practice of notating known conditions
Fulfill documentation obligations by disclosing known constrained conditions to the contractor, thereby transferring construction safety responsibility via contractual and professional norms
Broader ethical duty to consider whether design itself could eliminate foreseeable hazards rather than merely disclosing them
NSPE Code obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare (Section I.1)
Obligation to go beyond minimum standard of care when public safety is foreseeably at risk
Judgment about adequacy of disclosure versus design modification
Knowledge of contractual safety responsibility allocation
Design documentation phase, prior to construction commencement
Engineer T completed and issued construction documents with explicit notation of the constrained access conditions beneath floor level. This decision acknowledged the hazardous condition in writing but delegated responsibility for managing it to the contractor rather than resolving it through design.
Constrained Access Notation in Documents → Construction Documents Issued
Engineer T completed and issued construction documents with explicit notation of the constrained access condition, thereby formalizing and communicating the hazardous design condition to all construction parties
Without formal issuance of the documents, construction would not have proceeded under the constrained-access design; without the notation, the constrained condition might have been overlooked or challenged earlier
Completion of construction documents by Engineer T
Explicit notation of constrained access condition within those documents
Formal issuance of documents to construction parties
No subsequent design revision or hold placed on documents prior to issuance
Completion + notation of hazard + formal issuance = construction documents issued with embedded constrained-access condition
The act of issuance was sufficient to authorize and direct construction under the hazardous design
Case formally enters legal system; all professional and ethical decisions now occur in the shadow of litigation; Engineer T's statements and conduct become legally significant; the tension between legal strategy and ethical obligation becomes acute
Months after the accident, a formal construction claim and lawsuit were filed, converting the ethical and professional questions surrounding the injury into active legal proceedings. This event marked the formal entry of the legal system into the case.
Construction Contractor Safety Responsible Party
{'contractual_basis': 'EJCDC C-700 Standard General Conditions Articles 7.01A, 7.01B, 7.13A, 7.13C', 'safety_acceptance': 'Accepted construction risk and responsibility without any question'}
Accepted contractual responsibility for all construction means, methods, and safety programs without question, becoming the party solely responsible for worker safety during the structural modification construction, and the party best positioned to address the heightened safety risk that ultimately resulted in a worker injury.
{'type': 'contractual_counterparty', 'target': 'Engineer T Structural Modification Design Engineer'}
Construction Safety Responsible Contractor
the contractor accepted the construction risk and responsibility without any question
Contractor shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction
the contractor being the party best positioned to provide for project safety
Project formally transitions to construction phase; constrained working conditions are now a documented, known risk embedded in the project record; design alternatives no longer under active consideration
Early project phase, after design selection
The completed construction documents, containing explicit notation of constrained access beneath floor level, were formally issued to project stakeholders for use during construction. This event marked the transition from design phase to construction phase.
Should Engineer T disclose the complete factual record of post-accident deliberations during the deposition — including the personal belief that a professional error may have been made and the internal exchange with Engineer B — while refraining from volunteering an error characterization that has not been legally or professionally adjudicated?
Engineer T's obligation to disclose the full project history — including the post-accident site visit findings, the internal deliberation with Engineer B about whether an error had occurred, and the basis for the joint 'no error' determination — during deposition, while refraining from voluntarily characterizing the design as an error absent a direct question requiring such characterization.
Disclose the complete factual record of post-accident deliberations — including the personal belief that an error may have been made and the internal exchange with Engineer B — while answering all deposition questions fully and accurately, without volunteering an unsolicited error characterization
Withhold the post-accident internal deliberations and personal error belief from deposition testimony entirely, responding only to the literal scope of questions asked without disclosing the existence of the prior self-assessment or the exchange with Engineer B
Should Engineer T escalate the post-accident error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and seek an independent, disinterested professional review of the error question, given that Engineer B's institutional stake in a 'no error' outcome creates a structural conflict of interest that undermines the legitimacy of a purely internal supervisory determination?
Engineer T's obligation, upon forming a good-faith post-accident belief that the design approach may have constituted a professional error, to escalate that concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure — and Engineer B's corresponding obligation to conduct a good-faith, conflict-of-interest-free review of that concern — so that the firm's institutional 'no error' determination is reached through a legitimate professional process rather than one distorted by XYZ's litigation exposure.
Escalate the error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and simultaneously seek independent peer review from a disinterested senior engineer outside XYZ Consulting Engineers, or consult an NSPE ethics resource, before accepting the supervisory 'no error' determination as final
Escalate the error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and defer to Engineer B's supervisory determination as the firm's institutional resolution, without seeking independent external review
Should Engineer T formally document the post-accident recognition that a safer alternative design approach existed — framed as a forward-looking lessons-learned finding rather than a backward-looking error admission — within XYZ's internal quality management systems and communicate that insight to colleagues and the profession, regardless of the outcome of the legal proceedings and the joint 'no error' determination?
Engineer T's obligation, following the post-accident recognition that a safer alternative design approach existed, to formally document that insight within XYZ Consulting Engineers' quality management or lessons-learned systems — independent of the legal proceedings and the backward-looking error determination — so that the safety-relevant professional finding is preserved for the profession rather than absorbed entirely into the litigation record.
Formally document the post-accident recognition of the safer alternative design approach within XYZ's quality management or lessons-learned systems, framed as a forward-looking design improvement insight, and communicate the finding to colleagues and the profession independent of the legal proceedings
Defer any documentation or communication of the post-accident design insight until after the legal proceedings conclude, to avoid creating discoverable records that could be recharacterized as implicit error admissions in the pending litigation
Should Engineer T and Engineer B jointly conclude that no professional error was made in the structural design, given that a safer alternative design approach was recognized only after a construction worker was seriously injured?
Engineer T and Engineer B: Joint Error Determination After Post-Accident Recognition of Safer Alternative Design
Jointly conclude that no professional error was made, relying on standard-of-care compliance, contractual safety allocation to the contractor, and Engineer T's recognized competence boundary in construction safety
Acknowledge that a professional error or missed opportunity occurred in failing to explore safer alternative design concepts before finalizing documents that explicitly flagged the constrained-access condition, and document that acknowledgment within XYZ's quality management system
Refer the error characterization question to an independent, disinterested senior engineer outside XYZ Consulting Engineers before reaching any joint determination, in order to insulate the conclusion from Engineer B's institutional conflict of interest
Engineer T and Engineer B Senior Engineering Supervisor
Should Engineer T have selected the straightforward design approach without first exploring whether a safer alternative configuration existed, given that the design documents themselves explicitly noted the constrained-access condition that foreseeably complicated construction worker access?
Engineer T: Structural Design Approach Selection and Construction Safety Consideration When Constrained-Access Conditions Are Documented
Select the straightforward design approach as the first viable structural configuration, note the constrained-access condition in the construction documents, and rely on the contractor's contractual responsibility for construction means, methods, and worker safety
Solicit a constructability and construction safety review from the general contractor or a construction safety specialist before finalizing the design documents, in order to determine whether the documented constrained-access condition poses a foreseeable worker safety risk requiring design modification
Present both the straightforward constrained-access design approach and the more complex safer alternative to the client with explicit disclosure of the construction safety tradeoffs, allowing the client to make an informed choice before design documents are finalized
Should Engineer T have volunteered during the deposition the earlier personal belief that a professional error may have been made in not exploring alternative design concepts, given that Engineer T privately held that belief before deferring to Engineer B's dismissal and the attorneys' guidance to respond factually without characterizing the design as an error?
Engineer T: Error Acknowledgment and Deposition Disclosure Conduct After Post-Accident Self-Assessment and Joint No-Error Determination
Respond factually and completely to all deposition questions as asked, without volunteering the earlier personal belief that a professional error may have been made, in accordance with attorneys' guidance and the joint no-error determination reached with Engineer B
Proactively disclose during the deposition, without being asked, the earlier personal belief that a professional error may have been made in not exploring alternative design concepts, framing the disclosure as a truthful professional statement rather than a legal admission of fault
Before the deposition, seek independent ethical guidance — from NSPE, a disinterested peer outside XYZ, or a professional ethics resource — to determine whether the earlier personal error belief creates an affirmative disclosure obligation under III.1.a that operates independently of the joint no-error determination and the attorneys' deposition strategy
Should Engineer T have proactively explored and presented alternative, safer design approaches to the client before selecting the straightforward constrained-access design, given that the constrained-access condition was explicitly recognized and documented in the construction drawings?
Engineer T's pre-design decision whether to proactively identify and present both the straightforward constrained-access design approach and the safer alternative approach to the client before finalizing construction documents, given that the constrained-access condition was recognized and documented in the drawings.
Select the straightforward constrained-access design approach and issue construction documents noting the constrained condition without presenting alternative design options to the client
Identify and present both the straightforward constrained-access approach and the safer alternative approach to the client before finalizing design, with explicit disclosure of the construction safety tradeoffs between the two options
Solicit a constructability and construction safety review from the general contractor or a construction safety specialist before finalizing the design documents, given the explicitly documented constrained-access condition
After recognizing post-accident that a safer alternative design existed and privately forming the belief that a professional error may have been made, should Engineer T have independently acknowledged that error — to Engineer B, during the deposition, or through formal internal documentation — rather than deferring sequentially to Engineer B's institutional dismissal and attorneys' deposition guidance?
Engineer T's post-accident decision whether to independently acknowledge a professional error — specifically the failure to explore alternative, safer design concepts — after recognizing that a safer alternative existed, in the face of Engineer B's supervisory dismissal of that concern and attorneys' guidance to respond factually in deposition without volunteering error characterization.
Defer to Engineer B's joint 'no error' determination and respond factually to deposition questions without volunteering the earlier personal belief that a professional error may have been made
Seek an independent peer review of the error question from a disinterested senior engineer outside XYZ before accepting Engineer B's dismissal as final, and disclose the earlier error concern during the deposition if not independently resolved
Formally document the post-accident recognition that a safer alternative design existed within XYZ's quality management or lessons-learned systems, framed as a forward-looking design improvement insight, independently of the error determination and legal proceedings
Deposition concluded without error characterization on record; the central ethical question, whether Engineer T had a duty to volunteer an error acknowledgment, was never directly confronted in the legal proceeding; the ethical analysis must now occur outside the deposition context
During the deposition, Engineer T was never asked whether a design error had been made. This absence of questioning meant that Engineer T's decision not to volunteer an error acknowledgment was never directly tested, and the deposition concluded without an explicit error characterization on the record.
Design Alternative Exploration Obligation Framework
Structural engineering professional practice norms
Professional standard for exploring alternative design approaches
Engineer T selected a straightforward approach that required making structural connections immediately beneath floor level on an upper floor, in a tightly constrained space. Engineer T proceeded with the project per these parameters and did not explore alternative design approaches.
Engineer T expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made
Engineer T in self-assessment; Engineer B in evaluating professional conduct; attorneys in deposition preparation
The question of whether Engineer T had a professional obligation to explore alternative, safer design concepts before finalizing the structural modification design is the central ethical issue of the case.
EJCDC C-700 Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract
Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC)
Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract
Construction Contract Safety Allocation Standard
Contractor shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction (Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee [EJCDC], C-700, Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract, Article 7, Paragraph 7.01A)
The construction contracts also include provisions identifying the Contractor's sole responsibility for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety programs and precautions (Article 7, Paragraph 7.13A)
Engineer T and legal/contractual analysis in the BER discussion
Referenced to establish that contractor bears sole responsibility for construction means, methods, safety programs, and worker protection, providing the contractual basis for Engineer T's reliance on the contractor for construction safety
Engineer B Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction Supervisory Determination
Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction Capability
Engineer B demonstrated expert-level capability to correctly distinguish between a missed opportunity and a professional error when reviewing Engineer T's concern, determining through substantive technical and ethical analysis that the design met the standard of care and therefore did not constitute an error requiring acknowledgment.
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer at XYZ Consulting Engineers, reviewed Engineer T's concern about whether the design constituted a professional error and determined it did not
Supervisory review of Engineer T's design decisions, application of standard of care analysis, and authoritative determination that no error was made
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, fulfilled the supervisory error characterization authority obligation by conducting a review of Engineer T's concern
the BER sees this more as a missed opportunity than an ethical lapse and concludes that no 'error' was made in design.
Engineer B Peer Review Error Determination Superior Authority Dismissal Constraint
Engineer B reviewed the matter as Chief Structural Engineer and determined that XYZ had responded professionally and that exploring alternative designs was not a professional obligation under the standard of care. This determination constrained Engineer T's independent characterization of the design as an error.
Engineer B's authoritative professional determination as Chief Structural Engineer that no design error was made constrained Engineer T from continuing to characterize the design as an error in subsequent professional statements and deposition testimony, establishing that the superior authority's peer review finding — when grounded in professional analysis — operates as a defeasible constraint on the subordinate engineer's independent error characterization, subject to the subordinate engineer's independent ethical obligation to be honest if the superior's determination is itself professionally unsound.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional hierarchy and peer review norms; BER analysis
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, provided an authoritative professional interpretation that XYZ had responded professionally, that exploring alternative designs was not a professional obligation
Post-accident professional discussions and deposition
the discussion between Engineer T and Engineer B, as well as the legal/contractual perspective and ethical considerations outlined above, provide a rationale as to why Engineer T's design was not an 'error'
Engineer B Professional Judgment on Scope of Design Obligation
Engineer B, Chief Structural Engineer at XYZ Consulting Engineers
Chief Structural Engineer's professional assessment of design scope and error determination
Engineer B responded that Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project, they had recommended a straightforward structural modification approach, and they were not expected or asked to consider alternative concepts.
Engineer T was not trained in construction safety either by education (since civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety) or by specific experience (working for a construction contractor), Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk posed by the connection location.
Having thus thoughtfully considered the matter, both Engineer T and Engineer B decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of 'an error.'
Engineer T and Engineer B jointly in deciding not to acknowledge an error
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, provided an authoritative professional interpretation that XYZ had responded professionally, that exploring alternative concepts was not within the expected scope, and that Engineer T's lack of construction safety training meant the risk could not reasonably have been assessed.
Engineer B Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Recognition
Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to recognize that Engineer T's design conduct met the accepted professional standard of care and that this compliance established an ethical sufficiency floor below which the conduct did not constitute a professional error requiring acknowledgment.
Engineer B applied standard of care analysis to determine the ethical sufficiency boundary in Engineer T's error characterization determination
Applying standard of care analysis — including contractual risk-transfer provisions, competence boundaries, and scope of services — to determine that no error acknowledgment was required
Engineer B responded that Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project.
The contractor had not raised questions regarding the construction safety risk or safer construction alternatives.
They were not expected or asked to consider alternative concepts.
Engineer B Supervisory Error Threshold Adjudication Engineer T Design
Supervisory Error Threshold Adjudication Capability
Engineer B demonstrated expert-level supervisory error threshold adjudication capability by conducting a thorough, technically substantive, and good-faith review of Engineer T's concern — evaluating the applicable standard of care, the contractual risk transfer provisions, and the role of the contractor in construction safety — and reaching a defensible determination that the design did not constitute an error requiring acknowledgment.
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer at XYZ Consulting Engineers, adjudicated whether Engineer T's design constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment
Review of Engineer T's design decisions and concern, application of standard of care analysis and contractual risk transfer principles, and authoritative determination communicated to Engineer T
the discussion between Engineer T and Engineer B, as well as the legal/contractual perspective and ethical considerations outlined above, provide a rationale as to why Engineer T's design was not an 'error.'
Engineer B Supervisory Error Threshold Adjudication for Engineer T Design
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to conduct a thorough, technically substantive review of Engineer T's error concern and reach a defensible determination that the design conduct did not constitute a professional error requiring acknowledgment, based on standard of care compliance, competence boundary analysis, and contractual scope considerations.
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, adjudicated Engineer T's error concern and determined no error acknowledgment was required
Reviewing Engineer T's design decisions against applicable standard of care, evaluating competence boundary arguments, and determining that the situation did not merit acknowledgment of an error
Engineer T Constructability Alternative Exploration Resource Constraint Design Phase
The alternative design approach that would have allowed workers to make connections while standing on the floor was identified post-accident as more costly and time-consuming than the selected approach
Engineer T's selection of the straightforward structural connection approach was influenced by resource constraints — specifically, the alternative approach would have been more costly and taken more time — establishing that the resource differential between the selected approach and the safer alternative constituted a legitimate constraint on design selection, though one that did not override the obligation to at least explore the alternative before rejecting it.
Project scope and budget parameters; professional standard of care for design alternative exploration
The alternative approach would have been more costly and taken more time, but it would have allowed the construction workers to make all connections while standing on the floor such that injury would have been far less likely.
During structural modification design phase
Engineer T selected a straightforward approach that required making structural connections immediately beneath floor level on an upper floor, in a tightly constrained space.
Engineer T Constructability Safety Input Solicitation Missed Opportunity
Constructability and Construction Safety Input Solicitation Capability
Engineer T possessed but did not fully exercise the capability to solicit constructability review or independent construction safety review for the constrained-access connection details, representing a missed opportunity rather than an ethical violation.
Engineer T noted constrained access in design documents but did not actively seek constructability review or construction safety input before construction commenced
Notation in design documents that new structural connections were located in areas with limited access — demonstrating awareness — but without subsequent solicitation of constructability review, independent safety review, or inquiry into contractor safety planning
Another option would have been for Engineer T to request a constructability review, or an independent construction safety review, or to inquire whether the contractor's construction safety plan had flagged the heightened safety risk.
But Engineer T did not actively seek this input, and perhaps that is why Engineer T 'felt some personal responsibility for the accident.'
Engineer T Constructability Safety Review Solicitation Awareness
Construction Safety Risk Recognition in Structural Design Capability
Engineer T demonstrated partial awareness of the constructability and construction safety review solicitation opportunity — noting constrained access in design documents — but did not exercise the capability to solicit an independent constructability or construction safety review before issuing construction documents.
Engineer T had an opportunity to solicit constructability or construction safety review given the constrained-access connection detail but did not do so
Noting constrained access in design documents but not soliciting constructability review or construction safety assessment from qualified parties
The new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited, and the drawings clearly noted the constrained access.
Engineer T had an opportunity — and arguably a defeasible obligation — to solicit a constructability review, independent construction safety review.
Engineer T Construction Safety Competence Boundary Self-Recognition
Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer T demonstrated awareness of the boundary between structural engineering competence and construction safety assessment competence — recognizing that civil engineering education does not include construction safety training and that specific contractor experience would be required to assess worker safety risks in constrained-access conditions.
Engineer T's competence boundary in construction safety assessment was relevant to the error characterization determination
Acknowledging in discussions with Engineer B that construction safety assessment was outside the scope of civil engineering education and specific experience
Engineer T Construction Safety Competence Boundary Self-Recognition Design Phase
Construction Safety Competence Boundary Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer T demonstrated awareness of the construction safety competence boundary — recognizing that structural engineering education does not include construction safety training — which informed the decision to rely on contractual risk transfer to the contractor rather than independently assessing construction safety risks, though this boundary recognition did not extend to proactively soliciting input from construction safety specialists.
Engineer T's design decisions reflected awareness that construction safety assessment falls outside structural engineering competence, leading to contractual risk transfer rather than independent safety assessment
Reliance on standard contractual provisions transferring construction safety responsibility to the contractor as the party with specific construction safety expertise
to what extent are design engineers obligated to account for construction safety risks in their designs if they are not trained or have experience in construction safety methods
Engineer T Construction Safety Risk Recognition Design Documents
Engineer T demonstrated basic-to-intermediate construction safety risk recognition capability by noting in the design documents that new structural connections were located in areas with limited access, demonstrating awareness of the constrained-access condition, though without translating this awareness into proactive solicitation of safety review or presentation of alternative design approaches.
Engineer T's design documents specifically noted the constrained-access nature of the new structural connections, demonstrating awareness of the construction safety risk
Notation in construction documents that new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited
the design specifically mentions that the new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited.
These points demonstrate proper awareness and consideration of public safety, health, and welfare.
Engineer T Construction Safety Risk Recognition in Structural Design
Engineer T possessed partial construction safety risk recognition capability — sufficient to note constrained access in design documents — but lacked the training and experience to fully assess the worker safety risk posed by the constrained-access connection detail.
Engineer T selected a constrained-space structural connection approach and noted the constrained access in drawings but did not recognize the full extent of the construction safety risk or explore safer alternatives
Noting constrained access in design documents but not exploring alternative approaches that would have allowed workers to make connections while standing on the floor
Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk posed by the connection location.
This design detail required the construction workers to make the connections in a contorted fashion.
Engineer T Contractual Risk Transfer Ethical Residual Awareness
Contractual Risk Transfer Ethical Residual Awareness Capability
Engineer T demonstrated partial awareness of contractual risk transfer as ethical sufficiency mechanism by formally transferring construction safety responsibility to the General Contractor through standard contractual provisions, but did not fully exercise the residual ethical awareness dimension by proactively soliciting constructability review or presenting alternative design approaches.
Engineer T's structural modification design included constrained-access connection details and formally transferred construction safety responsibility to the General Contractor, who accepted without question
Reliance on standard EJCDC contractual provisions transferring sole construction safety responsibility to the contractor, without additional proactive steps to address the constrained-access connection details
Engineer T relied on the contractor to provide for worker safety during construction, and formally transferred this risk and responsibility via standard contractual language.
Further, the facts indicate the contractor accepted the construction risk and responsibility without any question.
Engineer T Deposition Factual Completeness
Deposition Factual Completeness Capability
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to provide complete and accurate factual testimony in deposition — including disclosing the full project history and the post-accident conversation with Engineer B regarding potential error acknowledgment obligations — without selective omission of material facts.
Engineer T prepared for and provided deposition testimony in legal proceedings arising from the construction accident
Reviewing and discussing the full project history with attorneys, including the conversation with Engineer B, and responding factually to all deposition questions
During preparation, Engineer T reviewed and discussed the project history, including the conversation with Engineer B relative to T's feeling there was, potentially, a professional obligation to acknowledge an error.
In the deposition, Engineer T responded factually to all questions regarding the design and the design process.
Engineer T Deposition Voluntary Self-Characterization Restraint
Deposition Voluntary Self-Characterization Restraint Capability
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to provide complete factual testimony in deposition while refraining from voluntarily characterizing the design decisions as an error — correctly understanding that factual completeness and voluntary self-characterization are distinct obligations, and that the legal process exists to determine error attribution.
Engineer T provided deposition testimony following the construction accident and lawsuit, guided by attorneys' advice to be factually complete without volunteering error characterizations
Responding factually to all deposition questions about the design and design process without volunteering an error acknowledgment when not asked
Engineer T was not asked if an error was made and did not offer an acknowledgement of a possible error.
The attorneys indicated that the legal process would determine whether, based on the facts, an error had been made, and that Engineer T should clearly report the facts, but should not voluntarily characterize the design work as an error.
Engineer T Deposition Voluntary Self-Characterization Restraint Legal Proceedings
Engineer T was obligated to exercise the capability to respond to all deposition questions with complete factual transparency while refraining from voluntarily characterizing the design as an error — a capability that the BER affirmed was correctly exercised given that no actual error had been made.
Engineer T provided deposition testimony in legal proceedings arising from the construction accident, required to balance factual completeness with restraint from voluntary error self-characterization
Deposition testimony prepared with XYZ's attorneys that disclosed the full project history without voluntarily characterizing the design decisions as errors
Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including T's views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error.
Because there was no error, Engineer T was not ethically obligated to acknowledge an error during the deposition.
Engineer T Ethical High Road Identification Post-Accident Reflection
Ethical High Road Identification Beyond Standard of Care Capability
Engineer T demonstrated developing capability to identify the ethical high road in hindsight following the construction accident — recognizing that presenting multiple design alternatives and soliciting constructability review would have constituted going above and beyond the standard of care — though this recognition came post-accident rather than during the design phase.
Following the construction accident, Engineer T recognized in hindsight that alternative approaches existed and felt personal responsibility, demonstrating retrospective ethical high road identification
Post-accident recognition that alternative design approaches existed that may have prevented the worker injury, and acknowledgment of personal responsibility feelings despite no formal error having been made
the BER believes Engineer T should state that while no error was made, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project existed which may have prevented the accident and worker injury.
In hindsight, knowing the outcomes, the BER believes all parties would have wanted to at least consider the opportunity.
Engineer T Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint Post-Accident Professional Statements
Engineer T felt personal responsibility for the accident and believed there may have been a professional obligation to acknowledge an error. The BER's analysis grounded the error characterization question in professional analysis and peer review rather than personal feelings.
Engineer T was constrained to express professional opinions about the design — including opinions about whether an error was made and whether alternative approaches existed — only on the basis of established professional analysis and peer review findings, prohibiting Engineer T from publicly characterizing the design as an error based solely on personal feelings of responsibility arising from the accident outcome rather than from completed professional analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER analysis
engineers must be honest, and issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner
the view is consistent with ethics provisions that require engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony; that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information, that they not distort or alter the facts
Engineer T Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination in Post-Accident Assessment
Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to distinguish between a preliminary personal belief that a professional error may have been made — which did not yet constitute an established fact — and a confirmed finding that would require mandatory disclosure, correctly escalating the concern to supervisory authority rather than treating the preliminary belief as a confirmed error.
Engineer T correctly identified the preliminary nature of the error concern and escalated to supervisory authority for determination
Expressing a belief that an error may have been made and seeking supervisory determination rather than unilaterally declaring an error and making public acknowledgment
Engineer T expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged.
The attorneys indicated that the legal process would determine whether, based on the facts, an error had been made.
They pointed out, however, that whether an error was made was not up to Engineer T and was not clear in this set of circumstances.
Engineer T Hindsight Alternative Design Voluntary Error Characterization Prohibition Post-Accident
Following the construction accident, Engineer T felt personal responsibility and believed there may have been a professional obligation to acknowledge an error. Engineer B reviewed the matter and determined no error had been made. The BER confirmed that because no error occurred, Engineer T was not obligated to acknowledge one.
Hindsight Alternative Design Voluntary Error Characterization Prohibition Constraint
Engineer T was constrained from voluntarily characterizing the structural modification design as a 'professional error' in post-accident discussions with Engineer B and in subsequent professional statements, because: (a) the design met the applicable standard of care, (b) Engineer B as Chief Structural Engineer determined no error was made, and (c) Engineer T's sense of personal responsibility arose from hindsight awareness of alternatives rather than from a contemporaneous professional judgment of design deficiency.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, III.1.a; BER Cases 97-13, 02-5
Because there was no error, Engineer T was not ethically obligated to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred.
Post-accident professional discussions and statements
Engineer T should not characterize the work as a design error
the fact that Engineer T (this present case) noticed after the accident that an alternative design approach could have prevented the worker injury does not mean that Engineer T was required to report this as an error
Engineer T Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint Pre-Design Phase
The BER identified that Engineer T had the ethical opportunity — though not a mandatory obligation — to identify and present multiple design alternatives to the client and design team, potentially including the contractor, early in the process. This was characterized as a missed opportunity rather than an ethical violation.
Engineer T was ethically positioned — though not formally obligated — to explore and present to the client whether hybrid or combined structural modification approaches existed that could reduce the constrained-access construction safety risk before accepting the single selected design approach as definitive, including presenting both the straightforward design alternative and the more involved structural modification concept with their respective benefits, drawbacks, and safety implications.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 21-2; BER analysis of current case
Case 21-2 suggests it would have been ethically appropriate (an opportunity, not an obligation) for Engineer T to identify not just the straightforward design alternative, but also the more involved structural modification concept, to identify and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of both options, and to place these matters before the client and other members of the design team, possibly including the contractor, early in the process.
the BER affirms the 'ethical high road' of considering more than one design approach
Engineer T Internal Error Concern Escalation Procedural Constraint
Engineer T escalated the error concern to Engineer B as Chief Structural Engineer, satisfying the internal escalation obligation before any external action was considered
Internal Compliance Reporting Escalation Constraint
Engineer T was constrained to first escalate the concern about potential professional error to Engineer B as the appropriate internal supervisory authority before taking any external action — including public acknowledgment of error or reporting to professional bodies — and was further constrained from abandoning the concern entirely without receiving a substantive supervisory response, which Engineer B provided through a thoughtful professional assessment.
NSPE Code of Ethics; XYZ internal supervisory structure; professional practice norms
Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged.
Immediately following post-accident site visit and recognition of potential error
Engineer T Internal Error Concern Escalation to Engineer B
Internal Error Concern Escalation to Supervisor Obligation
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to escalate a good-faith professional error concern to supervisory authority — Engineer B — rather than making a unilateral error acknowledgment determination, correctly recognizing that the supervisory authority had the appropriate role in making the error characterization determination.
Engineer T escalated the post-accident error concern to Engineer B rather than acting unilaterally
Proactively meeting with Chief Structural Engineer Engineer B to discuss the potential error and seek supervisory guidance on professional obligations
Engineer T Lessons Learned Post-Accident Communication
Lessons Learned Post-Accident Communication Capability
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to recognize in hindsight that a missed opportunity existed to explore safer alternative design approaches — and to honestly acknowledge that missed opportunity — without mischaracterizing the original design conduct as a professional error that had been determined not to meet the error threshold.
Engineer T's post-accident reflection identified a missed opportunity to explore safer alternatives, which the BER characterized as a lessons-learned obligation rather than an error acknowledgment obligation
Post-accident reflection recognizing that alternative design approaches would have been feasible and would have substantially reduced construction safety risk, and communicating this recognition to Engineer B
Engineer T revisited the site and realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way.
Engineer T felt some personal responsibility for the accident.
Engineer T Lessons Learned Post-Accident Communication Obligation
Engineer T was obligated to exercise the capability to honestly acknowledge the missed opportunity — that alternative design approaches existed that may have prevented the accident — and to communicate this lessons-learned insight to colleagues and the profession, without characterizing the original decision as a professional error.
Following the construction accident and BER analysis, Engineer T was obligated to communicate lessons learned about missed opportunities for construction safety consideration
BER determination that Engineer T should state that while no error was made, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project existed which may have prevented the accident and worker injury
Such conversation will not only allow Engineer T's firm and others to benefit from lessons learned through this very difficult experience but will also promote continued professional development relative to projects of this type.
Engineer T Missed Opportunity Lessons Learned Disclosure Post-Accident
The BER found that Engineer T's design was not an error but identified a missed opportunity to more fully hold paramount public safety. The BER directed that Engineer T should state that while no error was made, hindsight reveals alternative approaches that may have prevented the accident.
Missed Opportunity Lessons Learned Disclosure Constraint
Engineer T was constrained to affirmatively disclose in post-accident professional statements that hindsight reveals alternative design approaches existed — including presenting multiple structural modification concepts to the client, requesting constructability review, or seeking independent construction safety review — that may have prevented the worker injury, even though the failure to pursue those alternatives did not constitute a formal ethical violation or design error.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, III.1.a, III.1.b; BER analysis
Post-accident professional statements and discussions
Engineer T Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction Post-Accident
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to correctly identify — through consultation with Engineer B — that the design decision did not constitute a professional error but rather a missed opportunity to more fully protect worker safety, and correctly refrained from characterizing the work as an error in deposition testimony.
Following the construction accident and worker injury, Engineer T consulted with Engineer B and correctly determined that the design met the standard of care, then provided deposition testimony without voluntarily characterizing the work as an error
Consultation with Engineer B as Chief Structural Engineer, resulting in determination that no error was made; subsequent deposition testimony that did not voluntarily characterize the design as an error
Engineer T Non-Deception Deposition Factual Completeness Constraint
Engineer T was deposed in legal proceedings arising from construction accident and was obligated to provide complete factual testimony including disclosure of internal discussions about potential error acknowledgment
Engineer T was absolutely constrained from distorting, altering, or omitting any facts during deposition testimony, including the full project history, the post-accident site visit, the conversation with Engineer B regarding potential error acknowledgment, and all design decisions — prohibiting any deceptive omission or misrepresentation regardless of potential legal consequences to Engineer T or XYZ.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; attorney guidance; legal oath obligations
During deposition proceedings following filing of construction claim lawsuit
Engineer T Post-Accident Design Self-Assessment Error Threshold Determination
Post-Accident Design Self-Assessment and Error Threshold Determination Capability
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to conduct a post-accident self-assessment of prior design decisions and, through consultation with Engineer B, correctly determined that the design met the standard of care and therefore did not cross the threshold of a professional error requiring acknowledgment.
Following the construction accident and worker injury, Engineer T conducted a self-assessment and escalated to Engineer B for supervisory error characterization determination
Post-accident self-assessment leading to consultation with Engineer B, resulting in determination that the design was not an error but a missed opportunity
Engineer T felt some personal responsibility for the accident
Engineer T Post-Accident Design Self-Assessment and Error Threshold Determination
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to conduct an honest post-accident self-assessment of prior design decisions, forming a good-faith belief that a professional error may have been made and escalating that concern to supervisory authority for determination.
Following the construction accident, Engineer T conducted a post-accident self-assessment and escalated the error concern to Engineer B for supervisory determination
Meeting with Engineer B to discuss whether failure to explore alternative safer design concepts constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment under the NSPE Code of Ethics
Following the accident, Engineer T revisited the site and realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way.
Engineer T Post-Accident Hindsight Non-Retroactive Error Imposition Constraint
Engineer T recognized post-accident that alternative designs could have reduced worker injury risk, but Engineer B and legal counsel determined this hindsight recognition did not establish a professional error under applicable standards
Post-Accident Hindsight Non-Retroactive Error Imposition Constraint
Engineer T was constrained from being required to acknowledge a professional error solely on the basis of post-accident hindsight recognition that alternative design approaches existed, absent evidence that the standard of care at the time of design required exploration of those alternatives — establishing that the post-accident realization of missed opportunities does not retroactively convert a standard-of-care-compliant design decision into a professional error.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 02-5; professional standard of care principles; Engineer B's supervisory determination
Post-accident through deposition proceedings
They also pointed out that one of the purposes of the legal process was to determine what errors might have been made and by whom, and what impact such errors might have had on the accident.
Engineer T Precedent-Triangulated Construction Safety Ethics Reasoning BER Cases
Precedent-Triangulated Construction Safety Design Ethics Reasoning Capability
Engineer T's situation required — and the BER applied on Engineer T's behalf — the capability to triangulate among BER Cases 97-13, 21-2, and 02-5 to correctly determine that Engineer T's conduct was analogous to the standard-of-care-compliant engineers in those cases, and that the applicable precedent supported characterizing the outcome as a missed opportunity rather than an ethical violation.
The BER applied precedent triangulation to determine Engineer T's ethical obligations following the construction accident
BER analysis triangulating among three precedent cases to determine the applicable ethical standard for Engineer T's design decisions and post-accident obligations
BER Case 97-13 introduces Engineer A... the key finding from Case 97-13 is that the public welfare was best served by Engineer A exercising restraint in reporting.
Engineer T (in the current case) and Engineer A (Case 02-5) both followed accepted standard design practice.
This differs from the current case, not because public health, safety, and welfare is somehow less important now than in Case 21-2.
Engineer T Proactive Design Alternatives Exploration
Proactive Design Alternatives Exploration Capability
Engineer T possessed the technical capability to explore alternative structural design approaches but did not exercise this capability during the design phase, proceeding instead with the initially identified straightforward approach without exploring alternatives.
Engineer T did not explore alternative design approaches during the design phase, but recognized in hindsight that alternatives were available and would have been safer
Post-accident recognition that a fundamentally different, more complex but functionally equivalent approach would have been feasible and would have substantially reduced construction safety risk
Engineer T proceeded with the project per these parameters and did not explore alternative design approaches.
Engineer T Proactive Design Alternatives Exploration Missed Opportunity
Engineer T possessed but did not fully exercise the capability to proactively explore and present multiple structural modification design alternatives — including a more involved structural modification concept — before finalizing the constrained-access connection design, representing a missed ethical opportunity rather than an ethical violation.
Engineer T selected the constrained-access structural connection approach without proactively exploring and presenting alternative design concepts to the client and design team
Post-accident recognition that alternative design approaches existed that may have prevented the worker injury, indicating the alternatives were feasible but were not explored during the design phase
Case 21-2 suggests it would have been ethically appropriate (an opportunity, not an obligation) for Engineer T to identify not just the straightforward design alternative, but also the more involved structural modification concept, to identify and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of both options, and to place these matters before the client and other members of the design team.
Engineer T noticed after the accident that an alternative design approach could have prevented the worker injury.
Engineer T Public Safety Paramount Constraint Design Phase Constructability
The BER found that Engineer T's design met the minimum public safety obligation but identified a missed opportunity to more fully hold paramount public safety through voluntary measures such as constructability review or alternative design exploration.
Engineer T was constrained by the foundational engineering canon that public safety, health, and welfare must be held paramount, which — while satisfied at the minimum level by standard-of-care-compliant design and contractual safety transfer — created an ethical opportunity (and soft constraint) to take additional protective measures when the design contained identified constrained-access structural connections that created heightened construction worker safety risks.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Cases 97-13, 21-2, 02-5
the engineer must hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
Ethically, the facts of this case reveal a tension between the engineer doing what is professionally required, versus 'going above and beyond' in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare.
the BER believes this project was a missed opportunity for Engineer T to more fully and carefully hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare
Engineer T Public Safety Risk from Constrained Design
From issuance of construction documents through construction accident
The new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited, and the drawings clearly noted the constrained access
Construction worker safety risk created by constrained-access structural connection design
Construction accident resulting in serious and permanent injury to a worker
During construction, an accident occurred with a serious and permanent injury to a construction worker
The alternative approach would have allowed the construction workers to make all connections while standing on the floor such that injury would have been far less likely
This design detail required the construction workers to make the connections in a contorted fashion
Structural connections located in tightly constrained space requiring workers to make connections in a contorted fashion
Engineer T Responsible Charge Professional Accountability Acceptance
Post-Error Professional Accountability Acceptance Capability
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to accept professional accountability for the structural modifications design — including engaging in honest post-accident self-assessment, escalating error concerns to supervisory authority, and providing complete factual testimony — consistent with responsible charge obligations.
Engineer T, as the senior structural engineer in responsible charge of the structural modifications design, accepted professional accountability through honest self-assessment and transparent legal proceedings participation
Conducting post-accident self-assessment, meeting with Engineer B to discuss potential error obligations, and providing complete factual deposition testimony
Engineer T, as the senior structural engineer in responsible charge of the structural modifications design, was obligated to accept full professional accountability.
Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error had been made.
Engineer T Scope of Practice Boundary Constraint Construction Safety Assessment
Engineer T's structural design role and educational background did not include construction safety training, establishing a scope of practice boundary relevant to the post-accident error characterization analysis
Engineer T's scope of professional practice as a structural design engineer did not encompass construction safety assessment — a domain requiring specific education and contractor-side experience that Engineer T lacked — constraining the professional obligations that could reasonably be imposed on Engineer T regarding identification and mitigation of construction worker safety risks arising from design geometry.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; civil engineering education standards; state engineering practice act
Engineer T was not trained in construction safety either by education (since civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety) or by specific experience (working for a construction contractor)
Engineer T Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Design Phase
The BER analyzed whether Engineer T's standard-of-care-compliant design was ethically sufficient and concluded it was sufficient to avoid an ethical violation finding, while simultaneously identifying missed opportunities to exceed the minimum standard in service of worker safety.
Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Constraint
Engineer T's compliance with the applicable professional standard of care — including proper structural design, documentation of constrained-access connections, and formal contractual safety transfer — was ethically sufficient to avoid a finding of professional error or ethical violation, but did not exhaust Engineer T's ethical opportunities to promote worker safety through voluntary measures such as constructability review, alternative design exploration, or consultation with construction safety professionals.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 97-13, 21-2, 02-5; EJCDC standard contract provisions
because Engineer T's design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care, the BER sees this more as a missed opportunity than an ethical lapse
Design phase through post-accident review
While they cannot be ethically faulted for not 'going the extra mile' for the sake of the public health, safety, and welfare, the project outcomes likely would have been better if these engineers had done so.
the contractor is solely responsible for project safety, so Engineer T did not make any design error so long as the design met the professional standard of care (which the facts suggest it did)
Engineer T Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Recognition Structural Design
Engineer T demonstrated the capability to recognize — through post-accident self-assessment and consultation with Engineer B — that the structural modification design met the accepted professional standard of care, establishing an ethical sufficiency floor that meant no error requiring acknowledgment had been made, while simultaneously recognizing that the ethical high road would have involved going beyond this minimum.
Engineer T's structural modification design was determined to meet the accepted professional standard of care, establishing the ethical sufficiency boundary below which no error existed
Design that met professional standard of care for structural modification, followed by post-accident determination through consultation with Engineer B that the standard of care had been met
Engineer T's structural modification approach appears to have been straightforward, professionally designed, and properly presented in the construction documents.
because Engineer T's design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care, the BER sees this more as a missed opportunity than an ethical lapse.
Engineer T Structural Modification Design Competence
Structural Engineering Design Competence
Engineer T demonstrated advanced structural engineering design competence in designing major structural modifications to an existing building, producing construction documents that met the accepted professional standard of care for structural design.
Engineer T was a senior structural engineer in responsible charge of major structural modifications to an existing building
Designing structural modifications, selecting a straightforward connection approach, and issuing construction documents that met professional standards of care
Engineer T, a senior structural engineer who designs commercial buildings in the employ of XYZ Consulting Engineers, was in responsible charge of the design of major structural modifications to an existing building.
Engineer T completed the design within the identified constraints and issued construction documents for the modifications.
Engineer T revisiting the site before meeting between Engineer T and Engineer B
Following the accident, Engineer T revisited the site...Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error had been made.
meeting between Engineer T and Engineer B
Factual Deposition Testimony Without Volunteered Error Admission
Absence of volunteered error acknowledgment preserves legal defensibility but may leave ethical accountability questions unaddressed in the record
Honest factual testimony fulfills transparency obligations within the scope of questions asked
Factual transparency as affirmed by attorneys and consistent with ethical obligations
Legal obligation to provide truthful deposition testimony
NSPE Code obligation for honesty and truthfulness in professional communications (Section III.3)
Compliance with pre-deposition legal strategy
Deference to legal process for fault determination
Distinction between factual testimony and volunteered legal characterizations
Honesty and truthfulness in all professional communications
deliberate and constrained by prior strategic decision
Provide complete and honest factual testimony while adhering to the pre-deposition strategy of not volunteering legal characterizations of error, leaving fault determination to the legal process
Potentially: NSPE Code forthright disclosure obligation if volunteering error characterization is considered required even absent a direct question
Potentially: Spirit of NSPE Code error acknowledgment if Engineer T privately believed an error had occurred
Ability to provide clear and accurate factual testimony about structural engineering decisions
Judgment about the boundary between factual testimony and legal characterizations
Professional composure and honesty under adversarial questioning
During deposition, months after the accident and after lawsuit was filed
During the deposition, Engineer T answered all factual questions honestly and completely but, consistent with the pre-deposition strategy, did not volunteer a characterization of the design as an error when not directly asked. Engineer T was never asked whether an error had been made.
General Contractor Construction Safety Responsible Party Acceptance
The General Contractor possessed domain expertise in construction safety means, methods, and safety program management — the party best positioned to provide for project safety — and accepted contractual responsibility for all construction safety without raising questions about the constrained-access connection details.
The General Contractor accepted full construction safety responsibility through standard EJCDC contractual provisions and proceeded with construction without raising safety concerns about the constrained-access connection details
Acceptance of contractual provisions assigning sole responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures, and safety programs without question
the facts indicate the contractor accepted the construction risk and responsibility without any question
{'entity_type': 'Construction contractor', 'context': 'Structural modification construction'}
The construction contractor responsible for executing the structural modifications who did not raise questions regarding construction safety risk or safer construction alternatives prior to the accident, and who subsequently submitted a construction claim
{'type': 'claimant', 'target': 'XYZ Consulting Engineers Employer'}
{'type': 'contractor', 'target': 'XYZ Consulting Engineers Employer'}
The contractor had not raised questions regarding the construction safety risk or safer construction alternatives
after a construction claim had been submitted and a lawsuit had been filed
{'injury_type': 'Serious and permanent', 'context': 'Construction of structural modifications in constrained space'}
A construction worker who suffered a serious and permanent injury during construction of the structural modifications, having been required to make connections in a contorted fashion due to the constrained-space design; the injured party whose harm triggered Engineer T's ethical reflection and the subsequent legal proceedings
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Engineer T Structural Modification Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'plaintiff', 'target': 'XYZ Consulting Engineers Employer'}
Joint Error Determination with Engineer B
Conclusion of no error could foreclose further ethical action or acknowledgment
Decision could influence litigation posture
If the conclusion was wrong, it could constitute a failure to fulfill NSPE Code error acknowledgment obligations
Applying standard of care analysis to assess whether an error occurred
Consulting senior professional expertise to resolve ethical uncertainty
Engaging in good-faith ethical deliberation
Contractual allocation of construction safety responsibility
NSPE Code error acknowledgment obligations
Reliance on senior professional judgment
Standard of care as the benchmark for professional error
Engineer T (Senior Structural Engineer) and Engineer B (Chief Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers)
Reach a professionally grounded determination about whether an error occurred and whether the NSPE Code required acknowledgment, using senior professional judgment to resolve Engineer T's ethical uncertainty
Potentially: NSPE Code obligation to acknowledge errors if the conclusion of no error was incorrect
Potentially: Obligation to hold paramount public safety if standard of care was used as a ceiling rather than a floor for ethical conduct
Knowledge of professional standard of care
Understanding of contractual safety responsibility allocation
Post-accident, after Engineer T's site revisit and self-assessment
Engineer T met with Engineer B (Chief Structural Engineer) to jointly evaluate whether the design constituted an error requiring acknowledgment under the NSPE Code of Ethics. Together they concluded no error had been made, relying on standard of care compliance, contractual transfer of construction safety to the contractor, and Engineer T's lack of construction safety training.
Joint Error Determination with Engineer B → No Error Determination Reached
Engineer T met with Engineer B (Chief Structural Engineer) to jointly evaluate whether the design constituted an error; following the joint meeting, Engineer B concluded that no design error had been made, producing an official professional determination that shaped all subsequent disclosure decisions
Had Engineer B agreed with Engineer T's self-assessment that an error occurred, the disclosure strategy, deposition approach, and ethical obligations would have been materially different; had Engineer T not sought the joint meeting, no formal determination would have existed
Engineer B's authority as Chief Structural Engineer to render a professional determination
Engineer B's independent professional judgment that no error occurred
Engineer T initiating the joint meeting with Engineer B
The absence of a third-party or independent review that might have reached a different conclusion
Engineer B's senior authority combined with the joint evaluation process was sufficient to produce a formal professional position that no error occurred
Joint meeting + Engineer B's professional authority + Engineer B's conclusion of no error = official no-error determination
National Society of Professional Engineers
are engineers obligated by the NSPE Code of Ethics to 'acknowledge errors' when it is not clear an error has been made
ethics provisions that require engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony; that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information, that they not distort or alter the facts, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact; and that they accept personal responsibility for their professional activities
BER in analyzing Engineer T's and Engineer B's ethical obligations
Referenced as the primary normative authority establishing engineers' obligations to hold paramount public safety, health and welfare; to be competent; to be honest and truthful; to acknowledge errors; and to accept personal responsibility for professional activities
NSPE Code of Ethics - Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Provisions
Engineer T in conversation with Engineer B; referenced during deposition preparation
Engineer T invoked the NSPE Code of Ethics as the basis for believing there was a professional obligation to acknowledge a design error in not exploring alternative, safer design concepts.
Official organizational position established that no error occurred; Engineer T's personal ethical concern is institutionally resolved but may remain personally unresolved; the case moves toward legal defense posture rather than voluntary error acknowledgment
Post-accident, after Engineer T's site revisit and internal consultation with Engineer B
Following the joint meeting between Engineer T and Engineer B, Engineer B concluded that no design error had been made, citing standard professional practice, contractual transfer of construction safety responsibility to the contractor, and Engineer T's lack of formal construction safety training. This determination became the official organizational position.
Failure to self-assess could result in ethical violation if an error had in fact occurred
Self-assessment could lead to acknowledgment of error with legal and reputational consequences
NSPE Code obligation to act in good conscience and engage in honest self-evaluation
Obligation to consider whether corrective or remedial action is required under NSPE Code
NSPE Code requirement to acknowledge and correct errors (Section III.2 or equivalent)
Honestly assess whether the design decision constituted an error and whether professional ethical obligations required acknowledgment or corrective action
Knowledge of NSPE Code of Ethics obligations
Professional self-reflection and integrity
Structural engineering judgment to evaluate alternative design feasibility
Post-accident, after serious worker injury during construction
Following the serious injury to a construction worker, Engineer T revisited the site and personally recognized that an alternative design could have allowed safer construction, triggering an ethical self-assessment about whether a design error had occurred. This constitutes a volitional decision to engage in critical self-evaluation rather than deflect responsibility.
Post-Accident Error Self-Assessment → Alternative Design Recognized Post-Accident
Following the serious injury to a construction worker, Engineer T revisited the site and personally recognized that an alternative design, one that would have avoided the constrained access condition, had been available at the time of original design
Without the post-accident site visit and honest self-assessment, Engineer T may not have recognized the alternative design, and the ethical and legal dimensions of the case would have developed without this critical piece of self-knowledge
Engineer T physically returning to the site post-accident
Engineer T's honest self-assessment without defensive rationalization
Engineer T's professional competence to evaluate design alternatives
The alternative design actually existing as a viable option (retrospectively confirmed)
Site revisit + professional evaluation + honest self-assessment = recognition that a viable alternative existed
The combination of physical presence, professional judgment, and intellectual honesty was sufficient to produce the recognition of the alternative design
Pre-Deposition Disclosure Strategy Decision
Engineer T's personal ethical uncertainty about error remains unresolved in the legal record
Strict factual testimony without volunteered opinions preserves legal process integrity
Withholding voluntary error characterization could be perceived as evasion of ethical accountability
Avoidance of false or misleading statements
Commitment to factual honesty and transparency in legal proceedings
Compliance with attorneys' professional guidance within legal process
Attorneys' professional obligation to advise client on legal risk
Factual truthfulness in legal proceedings
NSPE Code transparency and honesty obligations
Engineer T (Senior Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers) and XYZ Consulting Engineers' attorneys
Ensure Engineer T's deposition testimony is factually truthful and legally defensible without volunteering characterizations of error that could prejudice the legal proceedings or constitute unsupported admissions
Potentially: NSPE Code obligation to be forthright in disclosing relevant professional information (if error characterization is considered relevant information)
Potentially: Spirit of NSPE Code error acknowledgment obligation, even if not its strict letter
Ability to distinguish factual testimony from legal characterizations
Judgment about scope of forthright disclosure in adversarial legal context
Knowledge of NSPE Code transparency obligations
Understanding of deposition procedures and legal obligations
Months after accident, after construction claim and lawsuit were filed, prior to deposition
Engineer T met with XYZ's attorneys prior to deposition to determine the appropriate scope of disclosure, jointly deciding that Engineer T should answer all factual questions honestly and transparently but should not voluntarily characterize the design as an error, leaving fault determination to the legal process.
Pre-Deposition Disclosure Strategy Decision → Factual Deposition Testimony Without Volunteered Error Admission
Engineer T met with XYZ's attorneys prior to deposition to determine the appropriate scope of disclosure; consistent with the strategy determined in that meeting, during the deposition Engineer T answered all factual questions honestly and completely but did not volunteer the personal error assessment
Without the pre-deposition strategy meeting, Engineer T might have volunteered the error assessment; had deposing counsel asked directly whether Engineer T believed a design error occurred, the strategy would have been tested against Engineer T's obligation to answer truthfully
A disclosure strategy being formulated and agreed upon in that meeting
Deposing counsel's failure to ask whether Engineer T believed a design error had been made
Engineer T's decision to follow the agreed strategy during deposition
Pre-deposition meeting between Engineer T and XYZ's attorneys
The no-error determination by Engineer B providing the professional basis for the strategy
Engineer T (primary); XYZ's attorneys (contributing)
Agreed disclosure strategy + Engineer T's compliance with strategy + absence of direct question about error = factual testimony without volunteered error admission
The combination of the pre-deposition strategy and the scope of questions asked was sufficient to produce testimony that was factually complete but did not include proactive error disclosure
Professional Competence Affirmed for Engineer T Structural Design
Structural modification design for existing building
Construction Safety Awareness in Structural Design
The BER affirmed that Engineer T demonstrated professional competence in structural engineering design, with the structural modification approach being straightforward, professionally designed, and properly presented in construction documents, thereby satisfying the competence obligation
Professional competence in this context required that the design meet applicable codes and standards and be properly documented; the BER found this obligation was satisfied, distinguishing competence from the aspirational obligation to exceed minimum standards
Engineer T Structural Modification Design Engineer
The facts of the present case do not raise concerns about Engineer T's competence in performing structural engineering design work
Competence obligation was fully satisfied; the ethical question concerned not competence but whether additional proactive safety engagement was required
Engineer T's structural modification approach appears to have been straightforward, professionally designed, and properly presented in the construction documents
engineers must be competent in their areas of service
Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard - Error Acknowledgment Obligation
NSPE and professional engineering community
Professional norms governing acknowledgment of design errors
Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard
Engineer T in self-assessment; Engineer B in evaluating the situation; attorneys in deposition preparation
The standard governing when engineers must acknowledge errors in their professional work is central to the case, as Engineer T believed the NSPE Code required acknowledgment of the failure to explore alternative design concepts.
Was it ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude an error had not been made in design?
Did Engineer T have an independent obligation to solicit a constructability or construction safety review from the contractor or a safety specialist before finalizing the design, given that the drawings explicitly noted constrained access conditions?
Was Engineer B's dismissal of Engineer T's ethical concern influenced by institutional self-interest — specifically, XYZ Consulting Engineers' exposure to liability — and if so, does that conflict of interest undermine the legitimacy of the joint 'no error' determination?
Does the NSPE Code of Ethics impose any obligation on Engineer T to proactively inform the injured construction worker or the public about the post-accident recognition that an alternative, safer design approach existed, independent of the legal proceedings?
When Engineer T recognized post-accident that a safer alternative design existed, did that recognition itself create a new, forward-looking ethical obligation to formally document and report the finding within XYZ Consulting Engineers' quality management or lessons-learned systems, regardless of the legal proceedings?
Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred?
Does the principle of Deposition Truthfulness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization conflict with the Error Acknowledgment Obligation, given that Engineer T privately believed a professional error may have been made but remained silent on that belief throughout the deposition?
Does the principle of Loyalty To Employer Institutional Position conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when Engineer B's dismissal of Engineer T's error concern served XYZ's legal and financial interests while potentially suppressing a safety-relevant professional acknowledgment?
Does the Standard of Care as Ethical Floor principle conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle — specifically, is it ethically sufficient for an engineer in responsible charge to meet only the minimum standard of care when a foreseeable, serious safety risk to construction workers could have been mitigated through additional design exploration?
Does the Contractual Risk Transfer principle conflict with the Professional Accountability principle when Engineer T relied on the contractor's contractual responsibility for construction safety, yet Engineer T's own design drawings explicitly flagged the constrained-access condition that created the hazard?
Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error during the deposition?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer T fulfill a categorical duty to hold public safety paramount by selecting the first viable design approach without systematically exploring whether alternative configurations would reduce foreseeable construction worker risk, regardless of whether that exploration was contractually required or within the standard of care?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the outcome of a seriously and permanently injured construction worker justify Engineer T and Engineer B's conclusion that no error had been made, given that an alternative design approach existed that would have made the injury far less likely, even if that approach was more costly and time-consuming?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer T demonstrate professional integrity and moral courage by initially raising the concern that a professional error requiring acknowledgment had been made, and did Engineer T subsequently compromise that integrity by deferring entirely to Engineer B's dismissal of that concern rather than pursuing independent ethical judgment?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer T fulfill the duty imposed by NSPE Code provision III.1.a to acknowledge errors and not distort or alter facts during the deposition by responding only to questions asked and withholding a voluntarily held belief that a professional error may have occurred, or does the duty to acknowledge errors operate independently of whether one is directly asked about them?
If Engineer T had solicited a constructability and construction safety review from the general contractor or a construction safety specialist before finalizing the design documents, would the constrained-access connection detail have been identified as a foreseeable worker safety risk, and would that consultation have shifted the ethical and legal determination of whether an error was made?
If Engineer T had presented the client with both the straightforward constrained-access design approach and the more complex, safer alternative approach at the outset of the project, allowing the client to make an informed choice with full awareness of the construction safety tradeoffs, would the Board's ethical analysis have changed, and would Engineer T's duty to hold public safety paramount have been more clearly satisfied?
If Engineer T had independently and proactively disclosed during the deposition, without being asked, the earlier personal belief that a professional error may have been made in not exploring alternative design concepts, would that disclosure have constituted a more complete fulfillment of the ethical obligations under NSPE Code provisions III.1.a and II.3.a, or would it have improperly substituted Engineer T's subjective self-assessment for the legal process's role in determining fault?
If Engineer B had agreed with Engineer T's initial assessment that a professional error had been made in not exploring alternative, safer design concepts, and XYZ Consulting Engineers had proactively acknowledged that error before the lawsuit was filed, how might that acknowledgment have affected both the ethical standing of Engineer T and Engineer B under the NSPE Code and the subsequent legal proceedings, including whether proactive acknowledgment would have been viewed as a fulfillment or a waiver of professional obligations?
Straightforward Design Approach Selection
Constrained working space for construction workers
Increased physical difficulty for workers performing connections
Completion of assigned professional task
Structural adequacy of design under standard of care
Standard professional practice for structural modification
Efficiently complete a structurally sound design meeting project requirements using a familiar, straightforward approach
Obligation to consider foreseeable risks to workers as members of the public affected by design decisions
Obligation to explore design alternatives when safety implications are foreseeable
Awareness of constructability and worker safety implications of design choices
Knowledge of alternative structural connection methods
Early project scoping phase, prior to construction document issuance
Engineer T selected a straightforward structural modification design requiring connections in a tightly constrained space beneath floor level without exploring alternative design concepts. This early scoping decision effectively locked in construction conditions that would later prove hazardous.
Straightforward Design Approach Selection → Worker Serious Injury Occurs
Engineer T selected a straightforward structural modification design requiring connections in a tight/constrained space, and during construction a worker suffered a serious and permanent injury as a direct result of working in that constrained access environment
Had Engineer T selected the alternative design (recognized post-accident as viable), the constrained access condition would not have existed and the injury would likely not have occurred
Absence of alternative design that would have avoided constrained conditions
Construction proceeding under the issued documents
Selection of design requiring work in constrained/tight access space
Worker physically present in the constrained space during construction activity
Design mandating constrained-space connections + construction execution + worker presence = injury event
The combination of design choice, issued documents, and construction activity was sufficient to produce the hazardous condition
Project status fundamentally changed; a human being has suffered permanent harm; ethical, legal, and professional obligations are activated for Engineer T, Engineer B, and XYZ Consulting; the case transitions from a routine engineering project to an ethics and liability scenario
During construction, a construction worker suffered a serious and permanent injury as a direct result of the contorted working conditions created by the constrained space beneath floor level required by Engineer T's design. This is the central harm event of the case.
Worker Serious Injury Occurs → Construction Claim and Lawsuit Filed
Months after the accident, a formal construction claim and lawsuit were filed, converting the ethical dimensions of the case into legal proceedings, the accident and its serious permanent consequences being the direct precipitating cause of the legal action
Without the serious injury, no lawsuit would have been filed; a minor or no injury would not have generated the legal and ethical crisis that followed
Legal basis for a construction claim existing under applicable law
The injured worker's (or representative's) decision to pursue legal remedy
The occurrence of the serious and permanent worker injury
The passage of sufficient time for investigation and claim preparation
Engineer T (for the underlying design decision); XYZ organization (institutional responsibility); Construction contractor (shared responsibility for site safety)
Serious permanent injury + viable legal theory + decision to pursue claim = lawsuit filed
The severity and permanence of the injury combined with the existence of a legal basis was sufficient to motivate and sustain formal legal action
{'entity_type': 'Consulting engineering firm', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering consulting'}
The consulting engineering firm employing Engineer T and Engineer B, whose institutional position on error acknowledgment was determined by Engineer B, and which retained legal counsel in the construction accident lawsuit
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer B Senior Engineering Supervisor'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer T Structural Modification Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'legal_counsel', 'target': 'XYZ Attorneys'}
Engineer T, a senior structural engineer who designs commercial buildings in the employ of XYZ Consulting Engineers
Engineer B responded that Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project
Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ's insurance company
construction accident before Engineer T revisiting the site
Following the accident, Engineer T revisited the site and realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on...
construction accident before deposition of Engineer T
During construction, an accident occurred...In the deposition, Engineer T responded factually to all questions regarding the design and the design process.
construction accident before meeting between Engineer T and Engineer B
During construction, an accident occurred...Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation.
construction accident during construction phase
During construction, an accident occurred with a serious and permanent injury to a construction worker.
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
construction claim submission and lawsuit filing before meeting between Engineer T and XYZ attorneys
Months later, after a construction claim had been submitted and a lawsuit had been filed, Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ's insurance company to prepare for a deposition.
construction claim submission and lawsuit filing
meeting between Engineer T and XYZ attorneys
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
Engineer B resolved the tension by finding that the principle's demands were bounded by the engineer's professional competence in construction safety and the contractual scope of the engagement
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.89
Engineer T's professional obligation to assess and mitigate construction worker safety risks arising from the constrained-access structural connection design was bounded by the absence of formal construction safety education and specific construction contractor experience, establishing that Engineer T could not reasonably be held to a standard of construction safety assessment that exceeded the competence their background could be expected to provide.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Engineer B determined that Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk, and that the engineer was not expected to consider alternative concepts, partially resolving the tension in favor of professional competence boundaries
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
BER found minimum awareness obligation was met through documentation; fuller awareness obligation was an unexercised ethical opportunity
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.91
Engineer T's competence in structural engineering design did not extend to construction safety assessment methods, as civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety training, constraining Engineer T from independently evaluating the adequacy of the contractor's safety plan or independently designing construction safety protocols for the constrained-access structural connections.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
Engineer T's professional responsibility for construction worker safety was bounded by the contractual allocation of construction means, methods, and safety program responsibility to the contractor under EJCDC C-700 standard conditions, establishing that the design engineer's obligations did not extend to independently assessing or mitigating construction execution risks that fell within the contractor's exclusive domain, particularly given that the contractor had not raised safety concerns about the constrained-access connection details.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
BER resolved that Engineer T should be fully truthful about design choices and alternatives in deposition without volunteering an error characterization, consistent with the finding that no error occurred
The attorneys' institutional guidance provided the balancing framework: factual disclosure satisfies honesty and transparency; error characterization is appropriately left to the legal process
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
Engineer B's supervisory determination that no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred, combined with the attorneys' guidance that the legal process would determine fault, resulted in Engineer T not volunteering an error acknowledgment in the deposition
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
BER resolved that Engineer T met the minimum public welfare obligation through standard-of-care design and contractual risk transfer, but identified a missed opportunity to more fully hold paramount public safety through alternatives presentation and constructability review
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
Engineer T was permitted to rely on formal contractual transfer of construction safety responsibility to the contractor under standard EJCDC provisions, but this reliance was ethically bounded by the fact that the design contained identified constrained-access structural connections — meaning the contractual transfer did not fully discharge Engineer T's ethical opportunity (and arguably soft obligation) to seek constructability review or present alternative design approaches to the client before finalizing the design.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
BER resolved that fact-based disclosure requires honest acknowledgment of both the standard-of-care compliance and the hindsight alternatives, without collapsing the distinction between them
BER resolved the tension by distinguishing the missed opportunity acknowledgment (required) from error acknowledgment (not required), permitting Engineer T to be fully honest about hindsight learning without mischaracterizing the original design
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.84
Engineer T was constrained in the manner and timing of lessons-learned disclosure by the concurrent legal proceedings — specifically, the obligation to share professional development insights from the accident was defeasible to the extent that disclosure during active litigation could prejudice the legal proceedings, requiring that the timing and scope of lessons-learned communication be calibrated to avoid creating misleading impressions or prejudicing the legal determination of fault.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
BER found that while presentation of alternatives was not obligatory under the standard of care, it represented the ethical high road that could have prevented the accident; failure to pursue it was a missed opportunity but not an ethical violation
BER resolved the tension by distinguishing between the error acknowledgment obligation (not triggered because no error occurred) and the missed opportunity acknowledgment obligation (triggered by hindsight recognition of better approaches)
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
Engineer B resolved the tension by finding that the combination of competence boundaries, contractual scope, and contractor responsibility meant the design approach did not constitute an error requiring acknowledgment
During deposition proceedings arising from the construction accident claim, Engineer T was constrained to respond clearly and honestly to all questions about the design and design process — including disclosing hindsight awareness of alternative design approaches — while simultaneously being constrained from voluntarily characterizing the design as a 'professional error' when no professional determination of error had been made by Engineer B or the BER.
Engineer T was constrained during deposition to respond to all questions with complete factual transparency while refraining from voluntarily characterizing the design work as an error, as directed by XYZ's attorneys who established that error determination was a function of the legal process rather than Engineer T's unilateral self-characterization.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.93
Engineer T was constrained from unilaterally characterizing the design approach as a professional error after Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, conducted a thoughtful professional review and determined that XYZ had responded professionally and that no error requiring acknowledgment had been made, absent new evidence or external adjudication overriding that supervisory determination.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Engineer T's accountability obligation was discharged through the good-faith consultation with Engineer B; the institutional determination that no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred then governed the subsequent conduct
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.92
BER found contractual transfer sufficient to avoid error characterization, but identified residual ethical awareness as generating an unexercised opportunity for enhanced safety engagement
Engineer B's determination that Engineer T was not expected to consider alternative concepts effectively resolved the tension in favor of a narrower interpretation of responsible charge obligations
deposition preparation meeting with attorneys before deposition
Engineer T met with attorneys...to prepare for a deposition of Engineer T...In the deposition, Engineer T responded factually to all questions.
deposition preparation meeting with attorneys
design phase (scoping and document production) before construction phase
Engineer T completed the design within the identified constraints and issued construction documents for the modifications...During construction, an accident occurred.
design phase (scoping and document production)
exploration of alternative design concepts before issuance of construction documents
Engineer T...did not explore alternative design approaches. Rather, Engineer T completed the design within the identified constraints and issued construction documents.
exploration of alternative design concepts
issuance of construction documents before construction work / accident
Engineer T...issued construction documents for the modifications...During construction, an accident occurred with a serious and permanent injury to a construction worker.
meeting between Engineer T and Engineer B before construction claim submission and lawsuit filing
Months later, after a construction claim had been submitted and a lawsuit had been filed, Engineer T met with attorneys...During preparation, Engineer T reviewed and discussed the project history, including the conversation with Engineer B.
meeting between Engineer T and XYZ attorneys (deposition preparation) before deposition of Engineer T
Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ's insurance company to prepare for a deposition of Engineer T...In the deposition, Engineer T responded factually to all questions.
meeting between Engineer T and XYZ attorneys (deposition preparation)
Engineer T relied on EJCDC standard contract provisions to formally transfer construction safety responsibility to the contractor, which the BER found legally and ethically sufficient to preclude an error finding, while also identifying the
Engineer T's post-accident recognition that an alternative design approach would have allowed workers to make connections while standing, making injury far less likely, raises the question of whether the public welfare obligation required e
The BER evaluated Engineer T's design choices against the paramount obligation to hold public safety, health, and welfare above other considerations, concluding that while the design met the standard of care, the principle creates an aspira
Engineer T, as the senior structural engineer in responsible charge of the structural modifications design, made the design approach selection and completed the construction documents, but the case raises whether responsible charge required
Engineer T's selection of a constrained-space connection detail without exploring alternative design approaches that would have allowed workers to make connections while standing raises the question of whether structural design engineers be
Engineer T demonstrated partial compliance with construction safety awareness by noting in design documents that new structural connections were located in areas with limited access, but the BER identified that fuller compliance would have
The BER identified Engineer T's failure to present alternative structural modification concepts with comparative safety analysis to the client and design team as a missed ethical opportunity, finding that such presentation would have been e
The BER invoked professional accountability to require Engineer T to accept personal responsibility for the professional activities on this project, including honest engagement with the project outcomes and lessons learned, even though no e
Engineer T's voluntary self-assessment of personal responsibility for the accident, and proactive consultation with Engineer B about whether an error acknowledgment obligation existed, reflects the professional accountability principle's re
Engineer T believed that not exploring alternative, safer design concepts constituted a design error that the NSPE Code of Ethics required to be acknowledged, and raised this concern with Engineer B before the legal proceedings
The BER found that while Engineer T was not obligated to acknowledge an error (because none occurred), Engineer T was obligated to acknowledge honestly that in hindsight, alternative design approaches existed that might have prevented the a
The BER applied the fact-based disclosure obligation to require that Engineer T's post-accident statements be grounded in the established facts — that the design met the standard of care, that no error occurred, but that alternative approac
The attorneys advised Engineer T to report all facts completely and transparently in the deposition while refraining from volunteering a characterization of the design work as an error, distinguishing between factual disclosure (required) a
Engineer T was required by both professional ethics and legal counsel to respond to all deposition questions with complete transparency, including disclosing the prior conversation with Engineer B about the potential error acknowledgment ob
The BER found that Engineer T was required to respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project during deposition, including views on alternative design approaches and public safety, but was not obligated to characterize the wo
Engineer T responded factually to all deposition questions without volunteering a characterization of the design work as an error, following attorneys' guidance that the legal process — not Engineer T — would determine whether an error had
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, exercised supervisory authority to make the institutional determination that no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred, based on a considered review of the project scope, Engineer T's competenc
Engineer B's determination that Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk because Engineer T lacked training in construction safety by education or specific experience invokes the competence prin
Engineer B's determination that XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally and that no error acknowledgment was required reflects in part the institutional interest of the firm in not voluntarily acknowledging error in circumstan
The BER applied the standard-of-care-as-ethical-floor principle to conclude that Engineer T's design, which met accepted professional practice, did not constitute an error despite the construction accident, characterizing the situation as a
Engineer T was obligated, when selecting the structural connection approach for the building modifications, to consider the foreseeable construction safety risks posed by the constrained-access connection detail and to explore alternative d
Engineer T, as the engineer in responsible charge of the structural modifications design, was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including construction workers — when selecting the design approach
Engineer T had an opportunity — consistent with the ethical high road identified by the BER — to identify and present multiple structural modification concepts to the client early in the design process, including comparative analysis of con
Engineer T had an opportunity — and arguably a defeasible obligation — to solicit a constructability review, independent construction safety review, or inquiry into the contractor's safety plan before construction commenced, given that the
Engineer T was obligated to recognize the boundaries of their competence with respect to construction safety assessment — given the absence of formal construction safety education or contractor-side experience — and to either seek appropria
Engineer T was obligated, upon forming a good-faith belief after the construction accident that the design approach may have constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment, to promptly bring that concern to Engineer B (Chief Stru
Engineer T faced a prima facie obligation to acknowledge the potential design error — specifically, the failure to explore alternative, safer design concepts — arising from the NSPE Code of Ethics; this obligation was ultimately determined
Engineer T was obligated, following the construction accident and the BER's analysis, to acknowledge honestly that while no design error was made, alternative approaches existed — including presenting multiple structural modification concep
Engineer T's structural modification design, which met the accepted professional standard of care and relied on standard contractual risk-transfer provisions, was ethically sufficient under the standard-of-care-as-ethical-floor principle
Engineer T was obligated to ground all post-accident professional statements and deposition testimony in established facts — including the factual basis for the design decisions, the contractual risk-transfer framework, and the existence of
Engineer T was obligated during the deposition to disclose the full project history completely and objectively — including the post-accident site visit findings, the internal deliberation with Engineer B about whether an error had occurred,
Engineer T was obligated during the deposition to respond to all questions with complete factual transparency — including disclosing the full project history, design decisions, and internal deliberations with Engineer B — while refraining f
Engineer T was obligated to characterize their post-accident self-assessment honestly and objectively in all statements and deposition testimony — acknowledging both that the design met professional standards and that alternative approaches
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, fulfilled the supervisory error characterization authority obligation by conducting a review of Engineer T's concern about a potential design error and making the considered institutional determinat
Engineer B was obligated, upon being consulted by Engineer T regarding whether the design approach constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment, to conduct a thorough and good-faith technical and ethical review of the concern
Engineer T partially fulfilled the construction safety consideration obligation by noting in the design documents that new structural connections were located in areas of limited access, thereby flagging the foreseeable construction safety
selection of straightforward design approach before issuance of construction documents
Engineer T selected a straightforward design approach...Engineer T completed the design within the identified constraints and issued construction documents for the modifications.
selection of straightforward design approach
Engineer T Construction Safety Contractual Transfer Reliance Boundary Design Phase
Engineer T designed structural modifications with constrained-access connections, formally transferred construction safety responsibility to the contractor via standard contract language, and the contractor accepted without question. A construction accident subsequently occurred. The BER found no ethical violation but identified a missed opportunity.
Construction Safety Responsibility Transfer Reliance Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; EJCDC C-700 Standard General Conditions Articles 7.01A, 7.01B, 7.13A, 7.13C; BER Cases 97-13, 21-2, 02-5
Design phase through construction completion
Was it enough simply to call attention to this and shift safety responsibility to the contractor?
the contractor is solely responsible for project safety, so Engineer T did not make any design error so long as the design met the professional standard of care
Engineer T Construction Safety Domain Incompetence Constraint Design Phase
Engineer T was competent in structural engineering but lacked construction safety domain expertise, which constrained the engineer's ability to independently assess whether the constrained-access design created unacceptable construction safety risks beyond what could be transferred to the contractor.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; Civil engineering education standards; BER Case analysis
Another option would have been for Engineer T to request a constructability review, or an independent construction safety review
civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety training
Engineer T Contractual Safety Transfer Scope Limitation Constraint Structural Design
Engineer T's structural modification design transferred construction safety responsibility to the contractor; the contractor did not raise concerns about constrained-access connection locations noted in the drawings
Contractual Safety Transfer Scope Limitation Constraint
EJCDC C-700 Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract; project contract documents
Throughout construction phase and post-accident professional assessment
Engineer T had specifically identified the constrained area of the new connections in the design documents
The drawings clearly noted the constrained access.
Engineer T Deposition Factual Completeness Without Voluntary Error Characterization
Engineer T participated in legal deposition proceedings. XYZ's attorneys provided guidance distinguishing between the obligation to report facts transparently and the obligation to voluntarily characterize the work as an error. The BER confirmed Engineer T was not obligated to acknowledge an error during deposition.
Deposition Factual Completeness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, III.1.a; Legal deposition conduct standards; BER analysis
Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error during the deposition? Again, using the same analysis presented above, the BER concludes that Engineer T's design was not an 'error.'
Engineer T Legal Counsel Deposition Conduct Constraint
Engineer T was deposed following a construction accident and lawsuit arising from structural connection design with constrained worker access
Legal Counsel Deposition Conduct Constraint
Attorney guidance during deposition preparation; NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions
During deposition preparation and deposition proceedings following filing of construction claim lawsuit
Engineer T was not asked if an error had been made and did not offer an acknowledgement of a possible error.
Engineer T Missed Opportunity Lessons Learned Disclosure Constraint Post-Accident
Engineer T's obligation to share lessons learned from the construction accident was in tension with the concurrent legal proceedings and attorney guidance on deposition conduct
NSPE Code of Ethics; attorney guidance on deposition conduct; professional development obligations
Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ's insurance company to prepare for a deposition of Engineer T.
Post-accident through completion of legal proceedings
Engineer T Superior Authority Error Determination Deference Constraint Post-Accident
Engineer T sought supervisory guidance from Engineer B regarding whether failure to explore alternative designs constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment under the NSPE Code
Superior Authority Error Determination Deference Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; XYZ internal supervisory authority; professional standard of care assessment by Engineer B
Following Engineer B's supervisory determination and through deposition proceedings
They pointed out, however, that whether an error was made was not up to Engineer T and was not clear in this set of circumstances, including for the reasons that Engineer B had indicated to Engineer T earlier.
Engineer T Construction Safety Domain Competence Boundary Constraint Design Phase
Engineer T selected a structural connection approach requiring constrained worker access without exploring safer alternatives, in a domain where construction safety assessment was outside their educational and experiential background
Construction Safety Domain Competence Boundary Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; civil engineering education standards; BER Case 97-13
During structural modification design phase and post-accident professional assessment
Civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety training
Engineer T Ethical Dilemma Error Acknowledgment vs Legal Counsel Direction
From deposition preparation through completion of deposition
Engineer T expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged
Engineer T's tension between personal professional obligation to acknowledge a possible error and legal counsel's direction not to volunteer error characterizations
Engineer T's decision to respond factually without volunteering error acknowledgment, consistent with legal counsel's direction
Engineer T responded factually to all questions regarding the design and the design process
Engineer T was not asked if an error had been made and did not offer an acknowledgement of a possible error
The attorneys indicated that the legal process would determine whether, based on the facts, an error had been made, and that Engineer T should clearly report the facts, but should not voluntarily characterize the design work as an error
Legal counsel directed Engineer T not to volunteer error characterizations while Engineer T believed the NSPE Code required error acknowledgment
Engineer T Superior Authority Dismissal of Error Concern
From Engineer T's meeting with Engineer B through legal proceedings
Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged
Superior Authority Dismissal of Compliance Concern State
Engineer B's dismissal of Engineer T's concern that a professional error requiring acknowledgment had been made
Not terminated; legal proceedings ongoing
Both Engineer T and Engineer B decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of 'an error'
Engineer B responded that Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project, they had recommended a straightforward structural modification approach, and they were not expected or asked to consider alternative concepts
Engineer T reported to Engineer B a belief that a design error had been made and that the NSPE Code required acknowledgment; Engineer B concluded no error occurred and no acknowledgment was warranted
Engineer T Unexplored Alternative Design
From project design phase through post-accident review and legal proceedings
Engineer T selected a straightforward approach that required making structural connections immediately beneath floor level on an upper floor, in a tightly constrained space
Engineer T's structural modification design for the existing building
Not yet terminated; legal proceedings ongoing to determine whether omission constitutes error
Engineer T proceeded with the project per these parameters and did not explore alternative design approaches
Engineer T realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way
The alternative approach would have been more costly and taken more time, but it would have allowed the construction workers to make all connections while standing on the floor such that injury would have been far less likely
Engineer T selected a single straightforward design approach without exploring alternatives, and a construction accident subsequently revealed a safer alternative existed
Engineer T Unverified Concern Pre-Accident
From design completion through construction phase prior to accident
the design specifically mentions that the new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited
Engineer T's awareness of constrained-access connection locations as a potential construction safety concern
Construction accident materializing the risk
Engineer T noticed after the accident that an alternative design approach could have prevented the worker injury
Engineer T's design specifically noted that new structural connections were located in areas with limited access, implying awareness of a potential construction challenge without formal safety analysis
Loyalty To Employer Institutional Position Invoked By Engineer B
Institutional decision not to acknowledge a design error prior to legal proceedings
Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
Engineer B's determination that XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally and that no error acknowledgment was required reflects in part the institutional interest of the firm in not voluntarily acknowledging error in circumstances where the legal and professional obligations to do so were genuinely ambiguous
The loyalty principle here operates at the institutional level — Engineer B's determination served XYZ's interests — but the case presents this as consistent with professional ethics rather than in conflict with it, because the error characterization was genuinely ambiguous
Engineer B Senior Engineering Supervisor
The tension was managed by Engineer B's good-faith professional judgment that no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred, which simultaneously served XYZ's institutional interests and was presented as professionally defensible
Engineer T Construction Safety Consideration in Design Document Notation
Engineer T's design documents specifically noted that new structural connections were located in constrained-access areas, demonstrating awareness of the construction safety risk, but Engineer T did not explore alternative connection details that would have allowed workers to make connections while standing.
Construction Safety Consideration in Structural Design Obligation
Engineer T partially fulfilled the construction safety consideration obligation by noting in the design documents that new structural connections were located in areas of limited access, thereby flagging the foreseeable construction safety risk, but did not fully satisfy the obligation by exploring alternative design concepts that would have reduced that risk to an acceptable level.
the design specifically mentions that the new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited. These points demonstrate proper awareness and consideration of public safety, health, and welfare.
During design development and preparation of construction documents
Engineer T Contested Error Characterization
From Engineer T's post-accident site visit through deposition and ongoing legal proceedings
Engineer T's professional determination of whether failure to explore alternative designs constitutes an error
Not yet terminated; legal process ongoing
Engineer T's personal conclusion that a design error was made, followed by Engineer B's contrary conclusion, followed by legal proceedings
Engineer T Fact-Based Disclosure in Post-Accident Professional Statements
Following the construction accident, Engineer T was required to make professional statements and provide deposition testimony that were grounded in facts and included all relevant information about the design process and alternatives.
Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
Engineer T was obligated to ground all post-accident professional statements and deposition testimony in established facts — including the factual basis for the design decisions, the contractual risk-transfer framework, and the existence of alternative approaches — rather than speculative characterizations, and to include all relevant and pertinent information in those statements.
The view is consistent with ethics provisions that require engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony; that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information, that they not distort or alter the facts, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
During and after legal proceedings arising from the construction accident
Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project.
Engineer T Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation
From BER determination through professional reflection and lessons-learned communication
the BER sees this more as a missed opportunity than an ethical lapse and concludes that no 'error' was made in design
Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation State
Engineer T's post-accident ethical status following BER review
Engineer T's acknowledgment of missed opportunity and communication of lessons learned
Such conversation will not only allow Engineer T's firm and others to benefit from lessons learned through this very difficult experience
the BER believes Engineer T should state that while no error was made, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project existed which may have prevented the accident and worker injury
BER determination that Engineer T's design met the standard of care but that additional voluntary actions could have prevented the accident
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation In Deposition Context
Deposition testimony regarding design process and design approach selection
Deposition Truthfulness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization
The attorneys advised Engineer T to report all facts completely and transparently in the deposition while refraining from volunteering a characterization of the design work as an error, distinguishing between factual disclosure (required) and professional error characterization (appropriately left to the legal process)
In the deposition context, the fact-based disclosure obligation required complete and accurate factual reporting of the design process, including the conversation with Engineer B about potential error, while the characterization of whether those facts constitute an error was treated as a legal determination rather than a factual disclosure
Engineer T Deponent Engineer in Legal Proceedings
The attorneys' guidance distinguished factual disclosure from error characterization, allowing Engineer T to satisfy the disclosure obligation through complete factual testimony while leaving error determination to the legal process
Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer T Lessons Learned Obligation
Post-accident professional reflection and communication
The BER invoked professional accountability to require Engineer T to accept personal responsibility for the professional activities on this project, including honest engagement with the project outcomes and lessons learned, even though no error occurred and no formal corrective action was required
Professional accountability in this context requires Engineer T to engage honestly with the project outcome rather than deflecting responsibility entirely to the contractor, acknowledging the personal sense of responsibility Engineer T felt and translating it into constructive professional learning
that engineers accept personal responsibility for their professional activities
Accountability obligation was satisfied by honest acknowledgment of missed opportunities and lessons learned without requiring false error acknowledgment
Engineer T 'felt some personal responsibility for the accident'
Contractual Risk Transfer Applied to Engineer T Construction Safety Delegation
Construction worker safety during structural modification
Engineer T relied on EJCDC standard contract provisions to formally transfer construction safety responsibility to the contractor, which the BER found legally and ethically sufficient to preclude an error finding, while also identifying the ethical residual awareness obligation that could have prompted additional proactive engagement
Contractual risk transfer through EJCDC provisions was legally effective and ethically permissible, but the ethical residual awareness principle created an opportunity — not obligation — to seek constructability review or safety consultation given the unusual access constraints
Contractual Risk Transfer and Ethical Residual Awareness
Through these legal/contractual mechanisms, risk and responsibility for worker safety during construction are formally transferred to the contractor, the contractor being the party best positioned to provide for project safety
Engineer T relied on the contractor to provide for worker safety during construction, and formally transferred this risk and responsibility via standard contractual language. Further, the facts indicate the contractor accepted the construction risk and responsibility without any question
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Applied to Engineer T Post-Accident Statements
Post-accident professional communications
Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation
The BER applied the fact-based disclosure obligation to require that Engineer T's post-accident statements be grounded in the established facts — that the design met the standard of care, that no error occurred, but that alternative approaches existed in hindsight — rather than either suppressing the hindsight learning or overstating it as an error acknowledgment
Fact-based disclosure requires Engineer T to distinguish between the confirmed finding (design met standard of care, no error) and the hindsight observation (alternative approaches existed that might have prevented the accident), presenting both accurately without distortion
The view is consistent with ethics provisions that require engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony; that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information, that they not distort or alter the facts, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact
Responsible Charge Engagement Invoked By Engineer T Design Process
Completion of construction documents with constrained-access connection details
Design approach selection for structural modifications
Engineer T, as the senior structural engineer in responsible charge of the structural modifications design, made the design approach selection and completed the construction documents, but the case raises whether responsible charge required more active exploration of alternative approaches given the foreseeable constrained-access hazard
Responsible charge was technically discharged through completion of the design and issuance of construction documents; the ethical question is whether responsible charge also required exploration of safer alternatives before finalizing the constrained-space approach
Engineer T was in responsible charge of the design of major structural modifications to an existing building.
Rather, Engineer T completed the design within the identified constraints and issued construction documents for the modifications.
Construction Safety Awareness In Structural Design Invoked By Engineer T Design
Failure to explore alternative design concepts
Structural connection location selection
Engineer T's selection of a constrained-space connection detail without exploring alternative design approaches that would have allowed workers to make connections while standing raises the question of whether structural design engineers bear an obligation to consider foreseeable construction worker safety risks in design alternative selection
The principle is invoked but its application is contested: Engineer T believed it required exploring safer alternatives; Engineer B determined that the competence boundary and contractual scope meant the principle did not impose that obligation in this case
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by Chief Structural Engineer title)', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'title': 'Chief Structural Engineer', 'employer': 'XYZ Consulting Engineers'}
Chief Structural Engineer at XYZ Consulting Engineers who reviewed Engineer T's concern about a potential design error and professional obligation to acknowledge it; determined that no error acknowledgment was required based on the scope of services, Engineer T's lack of construction safety training, and the contractor's failure to raise concerns
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'XYZ Consulting Engineers'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer T Structural Modification Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer T Structural Modification Design Engineer'}
Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation
Having thus thoughtfully considered the matter, both Engineer T and Engineer B decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of 'an error'
Engineer T Construction Safety Domain Incompetence
Throughout the design and construction phases of the structural modification project
Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
Engineer T's competence boundary regarding construction worker safety assessment
Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk posed by the connection location
Engineer T designed structural connections in a constrained space without the construction safety education or experience needed to assess worker safety risk
Engineer T Contractually Transferred Safety Responsibility
From execution of construction contract through construction phase and post-accident review
Contractually Transferred Safety Responsibility State
Engineer T's structural design engagement and relationship to contractor safety obligations
Post-accident legal and ethical review process; deposition proceedings
Engineer T relied on the contractor to provide for worker safety during construction, and formally transferred this risk and responsibility via standard contractual language
Execution of standard construction contract provisions assigning sole safety responsibility to contractor, accepted without objection by contractor
Engineer T Deposition Transparency Obligation
From deposition preparation meetings through completion of Engineer T's deposition
Both of XYZ Consulting Engineers' attorneys agreed that a clear obligation existed not to distort or alter any facts, and that Engineer T should respond to questions with complete transparency during the deposition
Deposition Transparency Obligation State
Engineer T's participation in legal deposition arising from construction accident claim
Construction claim filed and lawsuit initiated; Engineer T retained as deponent by XYZ's legal counsel
Objective Reporting Obligation Engineer T Deposition Full History Disclosure
Engineer T's attorneys confirmed the obligation to report all facts completely and transparently; Engineer T disclosed the full project history including the internal conversation with Engineer B during deposition preparation, ensuring the legal process had access to all relevant facts.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
Engineer T was obligated during the deposition to disclose the full project history completely and objectively — including the post-accident site visit findings, the internal deliberation with Engineer B about whether an error had occurred, and the basis for the institutional determination that no error acknowledgment was required — so that the legal process could make an informed determination of fault.
During deposition preparation and the deposition itself
Engineer T reviewed and discussed the project history, including the conversation with Engineer B relative to T's feeling there was, potentially, a professional obligation to acknowledge an error.
Professional Competence Boundaries In Construction Safety Assessment
Assessment of Engineer T's obligation to foresee construction worker safety risks from the design
Engineer B's determination that Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk because Engineer T lacked training in construction safety by education or specific experience invokes the competence principle's recognition of professional limitations and the appropriate boundaries of professional responsibility
The competence principle here operates to define the outer boundary of Engineer T's professional obligation: an engineer cannot be held to have made an error by failing to assess risks that fall outside their professional training and experience, provided the constrained conditions were disclosed in the design documents
Engineer B resolved the tension by finding that the competence boundary, combined with the contractual scope and the contractor's acceptance of safety responsibility, meant no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred
Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project, they had recommended a straightforward structural modification approach, and they were not expected or asked to consider alternative concepts.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer T Design Analysis
Decision to rely on contractor for construction safety
Structural modification design with constrained-access connections
The BER evaluated Engineer T's design choices against the paramount obligation to hold public safety, health, and welfare above other considerations, concluding that while the design met the standard of care, the principle creates an aspirational obligation to do more than the minimum required
In this context, public welfare paramount functions both as a minimum enforceable obligation (met by Engineer T) and as an aspirational standard calling for proactive engagement with construction safety alternatives beyond what contract law requires
Ethically, the facts of this case reveal a tension between the engineer doing what is professionally required, versus 'going above and beyond' in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare
Transparency Obligation In Legal Deposition
Disclosure of internal deliberations about error acknowledgment
Engineer T was required by both professional ethics and legal counsel to respond to all deposition questions with complete transparency, including disclosing the prior conversation with Engineer B about the potential error acknowledgment obligation
Transparency in the deposition context required not only accurate answers to questions asked but also willingness to disclose the internal deliberative process, including Engineer T's own belief that an error may have been made and the consultation with Engineer B
Engineer T should respond to questions with complete transparency during the deposition.
Transparency was satisfied through complete factual disclosure; the tension with institutional interests was managed by the attorneys' guidance that error characterization was not Engineer T's determination to make
Deposition Truthfulness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization Applied to Engineer T
Deposition testimony in legal proceedings arising from construction accident
The BER found that Engineer T was required to respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project during deposition, including views on alternative design approaches and public safety, but was not obligated to characterize the work as a design error because no error had occurred
Deposition truthfulness requires full factual accuracy about design choices, alternatives considered, and safety implications, but does not require volunteering an error characterization that goes beyond the facts when the design met the standard of care
Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including T's views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error
Because there was no error, Engineer T was not ethically obligated to acknowledge an error during the deposition
Deposition Truthfulness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization Invoked By Engineer T
Deposition testimony regarding design approach selection and post-accident self-assessment
Engineer T responded factually to all deposition questions without volunteering a characterization of the design work as an error, following attorneys' guidance that the legal process — not Engineer T — would determine whether an error had been made
The principle required Engineer T to provide complete factual accuracy — including about the internal deliberations with Engineer B — while refraining from volunteering the error characterization that Engineer T had privately believed might be required, because that characterization was properly a legal determination
Engineer B Supervisory Error Characterization Determination for Engineer T Design
Engineer T consulted Engineer B about whether the design decision constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment under the ethics code; Engineer B determined that no error had been made and that no acknowledgment was required.
Supervisory Error Characterization Authority Obligation
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, fulfilled the supervisory error characterization authority obligation by conducting a review of Engineer T's concern about a potential design error and making the considered institutional determination that no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred, based on the legal/contractual framework and the professional standard of care analysis.
the facts of this case and especially the discussion between Engineer T and Engineer B, as well as the legal/contractual perspective and ethical considerations outlined above, provide a rationale as to why Engineer T's design was not an 'error.'
Following the construction accident and Engineer T's internal escalation of the error concern
Engineer T Constructability Safety Review Solicitation Pre-Construction
Engineer T designed structural modifications with constrained-access connection details, noted the access limitation in design documents, and transferred construction safety responsibility to the contractor via standard contract language, but did not actively seek constructability or safety review input.
Constructability and Construction Safety Review Solicitation Obligation
Engineer T had an opportunity — and arguably a defeasible obligation — to solicit a constructability review, independent construction safety review, or inquiry into the contractor's safety plan before construction commenced, given that the structural modification design involved constrained-access connection details that posed foreseeable heightened safety risk to workers.
During design completion and pre-construction phases, before construction commenced
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'employer': 'XYZ Consulting Engineers', 'legal_context': 'Deposition in construction accident lawsuit'}
Engineer T served as deponent in legal proceedings arising from the construction accident, preparing with XYZ's attorneys and providing factual testimony without voluntarily characterizing the design as an error
{'type': 'legal_counsel', 'target': 'XYZ Insurance Attorneys'}
Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ's insurance company to prepare for a deposition of Engineer T
Engineer T reviewed and discussed the project history, including the conversation with Engineer B relative to T's feeling there was, potentially, a professional obligation to acknowledge an error
In the deposition, Engineer T responded factually to all questions regarding the design and the design process
Engineer T Post-Accident Honest Characterization in Deposition and Statements
Engineer T served as a deponent in legal proceedings following the construction accident, and the BER evaluated whether Engineer T was required to acknowledge an error in deposition testimony, concluding that honest characterization without false error acknowledgment was required.
Post-Accident Objective Self-Assessment and Honest Characterization Obligation
Engineer T was obligated to characterize their post-accident self-assessment honestly and objectively in all statements and deposition testimony — acknowledging both that the design met professional standards and that alternative approaches existed that were not explored — without falsely claiming error where none occurred and without suppressing recognition of the missed opportunity.
During deposition proceedings and post-accident professional communications
The view is consistent with ethics provisions that require engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony; that engineers include all relevant and pertinent information, that they not distort or alter the facts.
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Raised By Engineer T
Failure to explore alternative safer design concepts
Supervisory Authority in Error Characterization Decisions
Engineer T interpreted the error acknowledgment obligation as applying to the upstream design decision — the failure to explore alternatives — rather than only to technical calculation errors, reflecting a broad reading of what constitutes a professional error requiring disclosure
Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation Applied to Engineer T Post-Accident
Communication with firm and professional community about lessons learned
The BER found that while Engineer T was not obligated to acknowledge an error (because none occurred), Engineer T was obligated to acknowledge honestly that in hindsight, alternative design approaches existed that might have prevented the accident, as a form of professional integrity and institutional learning
The missed opportunity acknowledgment obligation requires Engineer T to state affirmatively that better approaches existed in hindsight without characterizing the original design as an error, thereby satisfying both truthfulness and accuracy obligations without false self-incrimination
In hindsight, knowing the outcomes, the BER believes all parties would have wanted to at least consider the opportunity
Such conversation will not only allow Engineer T's firm and others to benefit from lessons learned through this very difficult experience but will also promote continued professional development relative to projects of this type
Professional Accountability Invoked By Engineer T Self-Assessment
Consultation with Engineer B about error acknowledgment obligation
Post-accident self-assessment of design approach selection
Engineer T's voluntary self-assessment of personal responsibility for the accident, and proactive consultation with Engineer B about whether an error acknowledgment obligation existed, reflects the professional accountability principle's requirement that engineers take responsibility for their professional decisions
Professional accountability here required Engineer T to revisit the design decision after the accident, assess whether an error had been made, and seek supervisory guidance on the disclosure obligation — all of which Engineer T did, even before legal proceedings commenced
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer T Design Selection
Structural modification design approach selection
Engineer T's post-accident recognition that an alternative design approach would have allowed workers to make connections while standing, making injury far less likely, raises the question of whether the public welfare obligation required exploration of safer design alternatives at the design conception stage
In this context, public welfare extends to construction workers who must execute the design, requiring consideration of whether foreseeable construction hazards could have been avoided through alternative design approaches, even when the engineer lacks formal construction safety training
Engineer T realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way.
Supervisory Authority In Error Characterization Invoked By Engineer B
Institutional determination of whether Engineer T's design approach selection constituted a professional error
Engineer B, as Chief Structural Engineer, exercised supervisory authority to make the institutional determination that no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred, based on a considered review of the project scope, Engineer T's competence boundaries, the contractual allocation of safety responsibility, and the contractor's failure to raise safety concerns
Engineer B's exercise of supervisory authority is presented as a thoughtful, good-faith professional judgment rather than institutional self-protection, though the case leaves open whether that judgment was correct
Competence Boundary Awareness Obligation Engineer T Construction Safety Domain
Engineer B noted that Engineer T lacked training in construction safety by education (civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety) or by specific experience (working for a construction contractor), and therefore could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk; the question of whether this competence limitation triggered an obligation to seek additional expertise or flag the limitation was central to the ethics analysis.
Engineer T was obligated to recognize the boundaries of their competence with respect to construction safety assessment — given the absence of formal construction safety education or contractor-side experience — and to either seek appropriate expertise or explicitly flag construction safety risk concerns to the contractor and client when selecting a constrained-access connection detail that foreseeably posed ergonomic hazards to construction workers.
During the design phase, when selecting the constrained-access connection detail
Engineer B responded that Engineer T was not trained in construction safety either by education (since civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety) or by specific experience (working for a construction contractor).
Internal Error Concern Escalation Obligation Engineer T Self-Assessment
Engineer T felt personal responsibility for the accident and believed an ethics obligation to acknowledge error existed; Engineer T escalated the concern to Engineer B before any external legal proceedings required disclosure, enabling an internal institutional determination to be made.
Graduated Internal Escalation Obligation
Engineer T was obligated, upon forming a good-faith belief after the construction accident that the design approach may have constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment, to promptly bring that concern to Engineer B (Chief Structural Engineer) with full factual disclosure — including the post-accident site visit findings and the belief that an ethics obligation to acknowledge error existed — so that the firm could make a considered institutional determination.
Following the construction accident and Engineer T's post-accident site visit, before the filing of the lawsuit
Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Missed by Engineer T
Client and design team engagement on structural modification approach
Selection of constrained-access connection design
The BER identified Engineer T's failure to present alternative structural modification concepts with comparative safety analysis to the client and design team as a missed ethical opportunity, finding that such presentation would have been ethically appropriate given the unusual access constraints in the selected design
The principle generated an opportunity — characterized by the BER as not an obligation in this case — to identify both the straightforward design alternative and the more involved structural modification concept, discuss benefits and drawbacks, and place these before the client and design team early in the process
Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation for Public Safety
Case 21-2 suggests it would have been ethically appropriate (an opportunity, not an obligation) for Engineer T to identify not just the straightforward design alternative, but also the more involved structural modification concept, to identify and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of both options, and to place these matters before the client and other members of the design team, possibly including the contractor, early in the process
Another option would have been for Engineer T to request a constructability review, or an independent construction safety review, or to inquire whether the contractor's construction safety plan had flagged the heightened safety risk
the BER affirms the 'ethical high road' of considering more than one design approach, and certainly the BER would agree with seeking critical input from construction safety professionals
Supervisory Error Characterization Authority Obligation Engineer B XYZ
Engineer T brought a good-faith concern about a potential design error to Engineer B; Engineer B reviewed the situation and determined that no error acknowledgment was required, based on the scope of the engagement, Engineer T's lack of construction safety training, and the contractor's failure to raise safety concerns.
Engineer B (Chief Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers)
Engineer B was obligated, upon being consulted by Engineer T regarding whether the design approach constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment, to conduct a thorough and good-faith technical and ethical review of the concern, to make a considered institutional determination about whether an error occurred and whether acknowledgment was required, and to communicate that determination clearly to Engineer T — bearing institutional responsibility for the firm's professional accountability decision.
Following the construction accident and Engineer T's post-accident site visit, before the deposition
Deposition Factual Completeness Obligation Engineer T Legal Proceedings
Engineer T served as deponent in legal proceedings arising from the construction accident; attorneys advised complete factual transparency while cautioning against volunteering error characterizations that were properly reserved for the legal process to determine.
Deposition Factual Completeness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization Obligation
Engineer T was obligated during the deposition to respond to all questions with complete factual transparency — including disclosing the full project history, design decisions, and internal deliberations with Engineer B — while refraining from voluntarily characterizing the design work as an 'error' absent a direct question requiring such characterization, consistent with both professional ethics and the advice of legal counsel.
During the deposition in legal proceedings following the construction accident and filing of the lawsuit
They indicated that the legal process would determine whether, based on the facts, an error had been made, and that Engineer T should clearly report the facts, but should not voluntarily characterize the design work as an error.
Engineer T Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Post-Accident
Following a serious construction worker injury during structural modifications, Engineer T recognized in hindsight that alternative design approaches could have reduced construction safety risk, and the BER found this a missed opportunity rather than an ethical error.
Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment and Lessons Learned Communication Obligation
Engineer T was obligated, following the construction accident and the BER's analysis, to acknowledge honestly that while no design error was made, alternative approaches existed — including presenting multiple structural modification concepts and soliciting constructability review — that may have prevented the worker injury, and to communicate those lessons learned to the firm and profession.
Following the construction accident and completion of the BER analysis
Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Applied to Engineer T Design
Engineer T's constrained-access connection design decision
Post-accident error characterization analysis
The BER applied the standard-of-care-as-ethical-floor principle to conclude that Engineer T's design, which met accepted professional practice, did not constitute an error despite the construction accident, characterizing the situation as a missed opportunity rather than an ethical lapse
Meeting the standard of care establishes that no ethical violation occurred and no error acknowledgment is required, but does not preclude honest acknowledgment of better approaches that could have been taken
because Engineer T's design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care, the BER sees this more as a missed opportunity than an ethical lapse and concludes that no 'error' was made in design
Engineer T and Engineer A (Case 02-5) both followed accepted standard design practice
the facts do not suggest Engineer T made a design error
Construction Safety Awareness in Structural Design Applied to Engineer T Connection Selection
Selection and documentation of constrained-access structural connections
Engineer T demonstrated partial compliance with construction safety awareness by noting in design documents that new structural connections were located in areas with limited access, but the BER identified that fuller compliance would have involved presenting alternative design approaches and seeking constructability review given the foreseeable ergonomic hazards
Construction safety awareness required at minimum acknowledgment of the access constraint (which Engineer T provided) and ideally proactive engagement with alternatives and safety consultation (which Engineer T did not pursue), with the BER characterizing the latter as an unexercised opportunity rather than an ethical violation
the design specifically mentions that the new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited. These points demonstrate proper awareness and consideration of public safety, health, and welfare
Engineer T's solution approach for this project did include an unusual and challenging construction aspect
Engineer T Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Pre-Design Selection
Engineer T selected a structural modification approach with constrained-access connection details without presenting alternative design concepts with comparative safety analysis to the client and design team, which the BER identified as a missed opportunity.
Complete Comparative Design Alternatives Presentation Obligation
Engineer T had an opportunity — consistent with the ethical high road identified by the BER — to identify and present multiple structural modification concepts to the client early in the design process, including comparative analysis of construction safety implications, advantages, and disadvantages of each approach, rather than proceeding directly with a single design approach that involved constrained-access connection details.
During the design development phase, before finalizing the structural modification approach
The BER affirms the 'ethical high road' of considering more than one design approach.
Construction Safety Consideration Obligation Engineer T Design Selection
Engineer T selected a constrained-space connection detail without exploring alternative design approaches; a construction worker was seriously and permanently injured during construction; Engineer T later recognized that an alternative, functionally equivalent design would have allowed workers to make connections while standing, making injury far less likely.
Engineer T was obligated, when selecting the structural connection approach for the building modifications, to consider the foreseeable construction safety risks posed by the constrained-access connection detail and to explore alternative design concepts that would have allowed workers to make connections safely — even absent formal construction safety training — given that the constrained access was apparent from the design documents themselves.
During the project scoping and design development phase, before issuance of construction documents
Responsible Charge Design Safety Obligation Engineer T Structural Modifications
Engineer T was in responsible charge of the structural modifications design and selected a constrained-access connection detail without exploring alternatives; a construction worker suffered serious and permanent injury; Engineer T later recognized that an alternative design would have made injury far less likely.
Engineer T, as the engineer in responsible charge of the structural modifications design, was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including construction workers — when selecting the design approach, and to consider whether the constrained-access connection detail created foreseeable safety risks that could be mitigated through alternative design concepts.
During the design phase of the structural modifications project
Engineer T Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Determination
The BER evaluated whether Engineer T's design, which met professional standards but did not explore alternative safer approaches, constituted an ethical violation, ultimately concluding it was a missed opportunity rather than an ethical lapse.
Standard of Care Compliance as Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Obligation
Engineer T's structural modification design, which met the accepted professional standard of care and relied on standard contractual risk-transfer provisions, was ethically sufficient under the standard-of-care-as-ethical-floor principle, and the BER was obligated to recognize that failure to exceed the standard of care — while a missed opportunity — did not constitute an ethical violation.
because Engineer T's design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care, the BER sees this more as a missed opportunity than an ethical lapse and concludes that no 'error' was made in design.
At the time of design completion and throughout the BER review process
The key finding from Case 02-5 was that engineers cannot be expected (obligated) to incorporate each and every new, innovative technique until such techniques are incorporated into generally accepted practice and become standards that should be followed.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by responsible charge and NSPE code obligations)', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering, commercial buildings', 'seniority': 'Senior structural engineer', 'employer': 'XYZ Consulting Engineers'}
Senior structural engineer in responsible charge of designing major structural modifications to an existing building; selected a constrained-space connection approach without exploring alternatives; issued construction documents; a construction worker was seriously injured during construction; subsequently felt personal responsibility and raised the question of error acknowledgment with supervisor Engineer B; later provided deposition testimony in the resulting lawsuit
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Senior Engineering Supervisor'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'Injured Construction Worker'}
{'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer B Senior Engineering Supervisor'}
Engineer T, a senior structural engineer who designs commercial buildings in the employ of XYZ Consulting Engineers, was in responsible charge of the design of major structural modifications to an existing building
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Engineer T Post-Accident Assessment
Engineer T believed the NSPE Code of Ethics required acknowledgment of the design error; Engineer B's supervisory determination concluded that no error acknowledgment was required; the legal process was identified as the appropriate mechanism for determining whether an error occurred.
Engineer T faced a prima facie obligation to acknowledge the potential design error — specifically, the failure to explore alternative, safer design concepts — arising from the NSPE Code of Ethics; this obligation was ultimately determined by Engineer B's supervisory review to be inapplicable in the circumstances, given the scope of the engagement, the limits of Engineer T's construction safety competence, and the contractor's failure to raise safety concerns.
Following the construction accident, during the period between the accident and the deposition
They also pointed out that one of the purposes of the legal process was to determine what errors might have been made and by whom.