Ethics in the civil engineering profession
... a theory that argues that humans have basic rights. When humans respect these rights, they are being ethical. The last moral code is called virtue ethics. This is a theory that says being ethical means manifesting good virtues- or habits which allow us to engage in rational activities and to reach a balance in our lives. Courage, truthfulness, and generosity are examples of these virtues. Engineers have a duty to provide their services in a manner consistent with the "standard of care" of their professions. A good working definition of the standard of care of a professional is: that level or quality of service ordinarily provided by other normally competent practitioners of good standing in that field, contemporaneously providing similar services in the same locality and under the same circumstances. An engineer's service need not be perfect. Since the engineer, when providing professional services, is using judgment gained from experience and learning, and is usually providing those services in situations where a certain amount of unknown or uncontrollable factors are common, some level of error in those services is allowed . The fact that an engineer makes a mistake that causes injury or damage, is not sufficient to lead to professional liability on the part of the engineer. In order for there to be professional liability, it must be proven the services were professionally negligent, that is, they fell beneath the standard of care of the profession. “The standard of care is not what an engineer should have done in a particular instance, it is not what others say an engineer would do, or what others say they themselves would have done, it is just what competent engineers actually did in similar circumstances. (Elbaz, Professional Ethics in Engineering: A Resource Guide , pg. 50)” There were hundreds of case studies I found to demonstrate this, but I decided to chose only two as examples. The first is called The Foundation Design Case. The Foundation Design Case “A large condominium project was built in six phases, spread out over several years. For Phases I through III the soils engineer recommended the foundation be a drilled pier type, and that the piers be 4 feet deep. When construction of Phase IV started, he recommended 6 feet deep piers. Later, during construction of Phases V and VI, the structural engineer went back to 4 feet piers. All the buildings in all six phases were of the same design, based on the same soils report. The soils were similar in all Phases. The engineer is negligent in not carrying forward the soils engineer's Phase IV recommendations. Management and control of information is part of diligent engineering practice. It was argued that the engineer's failure to carry forward the revised soils engineering parameters represented an error inconsistent with the standard of care. (Callahan, Ethical Issues in Professional Life, pg.98)” The second case study is called The Steel Frame Design Case. The Steel Frame Design Case “A two-story, mixed-use, wood-framed building on a corner lot incorporated two full-height moment frames, one on each of two adjacent sides facing the streets, in order to accommodate storefronts and office windows. The location was in seismic zone 4, close to a known, active fault. The engineer of record produced a set of calculations for the frames. One frame was designed based on five lines of calculations; the other frame was designed based on one line of calculations, which read, "Similar." The calculations did not include any treatment of the vertical loads which the frame had to support, or any evaluation of earthquake-induced drift. A thorough and detailed computer-aided analysis performed during an investigation of the building showed that the frame as originally designed was adequate in terms of stiffness and strength for Code-required loads. In fact, the analysis showed the frames were a very efficient and economical design. The calculations were not adequate to describe the design intent of the structural engineer. They did not include the evaluation of the performance of the frames under Code-required dead and live loads, or any required combinations of loads. The stresses and deflections induced by required or anticipated loads were not compared with allowable values. (Callahan, Ethical Issues in Professional Life, pg.167)” “Error is fact of life: "To err is human." Some error comes from variability and uncertainty in what the engineer is dealing with: real materials, natural and man-made loads, and humans and their organizations. Error can lead to failure, which can cause injury, and result in damages. An engineer is not liable, or responsible, for damages from every error. (Firmage, D.A., Modern Engineering Practice: Ethical, Professional, and Legal Aspects, pg. 254)” Society has decided, through case law, that when you hire an engineer, you buy the engineers normal errors. However, if the error is shown to have been worse than a certain level of error, the engineer is liable. That level, the line between non-negligent and negligent error, is the "standard of care." A judge or jury, has to determine what the standard of care is, and whether an engineer ...