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. Engineer T’s design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care.It was ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred because there was no error. However, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project may have prevented the accident and worker injury, and this was a missed opportunity to hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare. Engineer T is encouraged to share this hard “lesson learned” as part of continued professional development.It was ethical for Engineer T to refrain from acknowledging an error during the deposition because there was no error. Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error.

This case addresses two ethical issues in engineering practice: 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, and are engineers obligated by the NSPE Code of Ethics to “acknowledge errors” when it is not clear an error has been made. The first issue, having to do with considering construction safety risks in the design, can be approached from both a legal/contractual (i.e., risk management) perspective and from an ethical perspective. On the legal/contractual side, many professional engineers familiar with construction contracts believe contract language sufficiently settles the matter. They point to standard construction contract provisions such as, “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), for obtaining additional services as needed to carry out Contractor’s safety responsibilities (Article 7, Paragraph 7.01B), and for taking necessary precautions for safety and providing necessary protection to prevent damage, injury, or loss to all persons on the site who may be affected by the work (Article 7, Paragraph 7.13C). 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.  By this view, and with reference to the present case, the contractor is solely responsible for project safety, so Engineer T did not make any design error so long as the...

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. In establishing the project scope for the structural modifications, 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. Rather, Engineer T completed the design within the identified constraints and issued construction documents for the modifications.The new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited, and the drawings clearly noted the constrained access. This design detail required the construction workers to make the connections in a contorted fashion. During construction, an accident occurred with a serious and permanent injury to a construction worker. 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. 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 felt some personal responsibility for the accident.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. Engineer B responded that Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project, they had recom...

Was it ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude an error had not been made in design?Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred?Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error during the deposition?

I.1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Subject Reference Duty to the Public I.2. Perform services only in areas of their competence. Subject Reference Competence Qualifications for Work I.3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism I.4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees II.3.a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current. Subject Reference Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Professional Reports, Statements, Testimony III.1.a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts. Subject Reference Errors III.3.a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact. Subject Reference Advertising Self-Promotion III.8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected. Subject Reference Liability Professional Responsibility