The Fact Chronology of Case # 71-4

Fact Time Qualifier
1. Engineer A <is hired to provide services for> Client X. Pre-existing fact
2. Engineer A <designs> Facility X. Occurs during 1
3. Construction Company A <constructs> Facility X. After the conclusion of 2
4. Client X <terminates the services of> Engineer A. After the conclusion of 3, Ends 1
5. Client X <files a lawsuit or arbitration action against> Engineer A <because> Facility X Cost & Facility X Design Errors. After the conclusion of 4
6. Engineer B <is hired to provide services for> Client X. After the conclusion of 4
7. Engineer B <agrees to provide expert testimony for> Client X <regarding> (Engineer A <designs> Facility X). Occurs during 6
8. Engineer B <reviews and analyzes> (Engineer A <designs> Facility X). Occurs during 6
9. Engineer B <writes paper/article> Analysis Report. Occurs during 6, 8
10. Analysis Report <criticizes> Facility X Design Errors. Occurs as part of 9
11. Analysis Report <criticizes> Facility X Design Philosophy. Occurs as part of 9
12. Engineer B <redesigns> Facility X. [Questioned Fact 3] After the conclusion of 9, Occurs during 6
13. Engineer B <provides expert testimony for> Client X <regarding> (Engineer A <designs> Facility X). After the conclusion of 8, 12, Occurs during 6
14. Engineer B <criticizes> Facility X Design Errors <to> Court. [Questioned Fact 1] Occurs as part of 13
15. Engineer B <criticizes> Facility X Design Philosophy <to> Court. [Questioned Fact 2] Occurs as part of 13

Actor and Object Types.

1.
Engineer A --> Engineer.
2.
Client X --> Client Firm.
3.
Facility X --> Engineering Artifact.
4.
Construction Company A --> Construction Contractor.
5.
Facility X Cost --> Cost of Work.
6.
Facility X Design Errors --> Design Errors.
7.
Engineer B --> Engineer.
8.
Analysis Report --> Evaluation Report.
9.
Facility X Design Philosophy -->Work Philosophy.
10.
Court --> Court of Law or Arbitration Board.

The Board's Analysis

Questioned Fact(s) 1: Fact 14
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer B
The Board's Conclusion: Ethical

The board cited the following evidence in support of their conclusion:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
12. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer criticizes another engineer's work [13, 14] ^  ^ Engineer does not indiscriminately criticize another engineer's work [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] ^ 
5. Not Violated Referenced Only None None ^ Engineer expresses an opinion on an engineering subject [13, 14] ^  ^ Engineer's opinion is based on adequate knowledge [8] 

Engineer's opinion is based on honest conviction [Unstated assumption] ^ 
 
 
Case Citation Type How Cited Grouped with Q # Why Relevant? Why Distinguished or Analogous?
63-6 Analogous Precedent, More Importance Explicitly Discussed None 1, 2 ^ %Engineer criticizes the work of another engineer% [13, 14] ^  ^ %Engineer is entitled to a different opinion/conclusion than another engineer% [Hypo: "There may ... be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts."] 

%Engineer was, in fact, hired to be critical of another engineer's work% [7] ^ 

The board cited the following evidence that conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

The board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion:

None.
Questioned Fact(s) 2: Fact 15
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer B
The Board's Conclusion: Unethical

The board cited the following evidence in support of their conclusion:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
12. Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer criticizes another engineer's work [13, 15] ^  ^ Engineer indiscriminately criticizes another engineer's work [Hypo: "If Engineer B's criticism of the design philosophy of Engineer A is merely a difference of opinion he is outside of his right of ethical criticism."] ^ 

The board cited the following evidence that conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

The board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion:

None.
Questioned Fact(s) 3: Fact 12
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer B
The Board's Conclusion: Ethical

The board cited the following evidence in support of their conclusion:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
11. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer competes with another engineer or engineers for employment, advancement, or professional engagement [1, 6, 7] ^  ^ Engineer does not compete unfairly by criticizing other engineers [Hypo: "In the absence of such facts ... we shall assume that Engineer B did not obtain his assignment by criticizing Engineer A before being retained ...] 

Engineer does not compete unfairly by other improper or questionable methods [Hypo: "In the absence of such facts ... we shall assume that Engineer B did not obtain his assignment ... by improper or questionable methods.] ^ 

The board cited the following evidence that conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

The board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

[Main Page] [Index to Reference Documents]
[Index to All Examples] [Previous Example] [Next Example]