Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Discussion)

Section Content:

Facts:
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 recommended a straightforward structural modification approach, and they were not expected or asked to consider alternative concepts.
Further, Engineer T had specifically identified the constrained area of the new connections in the design documents, but because 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.
The contractor had not raised questions regarding the construction safety risk or safer construction alternatives.
Having thus thoughtfully considered the matter, both Engineer T and Engineer B decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of “an error.”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 of Engineer T.
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 – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the deposition, 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.