The Fact Chronology of Case # 85-6

Fact Time Qualifier
1. Engineer A <resides next to> Highway Spur. Pre-existing fact
2. State <proposes the solution> Highway Spur. Pre-existing fact
3. State <hires the services of> Engineer A <for> (Engineer A <reviews and analyzes> Highway Spur). After the start of 1, 2
4. Engineer A <informs> State <that> (Engineer A <resides next to> Highway Spur). After the start of 3 Occurs during 3
5. State <does not object to> (Engineer A <reviews and analyzes> Highway Spur). After the conclusion of 4, Occurs during 3
6. Engineer A <reviews and analyzes> Highway Spur. [Questioned Fact] After the conclusion of 5, Occurs during 3 ^ 
7. Engineer A <provides a favorable recommendation of> Highway Spur <to> State. After the start of 6 Occurs during 6

Actor and Object Types.

1.
State --> Governmental Body.
2.
Highway Spur --> Engineering Artifact.
3.
Engineer A --> Engineer.

The Board's Analysis

Questioned Fact(s): Fact 6
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer A
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?
II.4. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed II.4.a. None ^ Engineer has a client [3] ^  ^ Engineer acts as a faithful agent or trustee for the client [4] ^ 
II.4.a. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed II.4. None ^ Engineer has a client [3]

Engineer has a known conflict of interest [1] ^ 

^ Engineer promptly informs the client of association, interest or other circumstances which could influence his judgment or the quality of his services [4]

Engineer promptly informs the client of association, interest or other circumstances which could appear to influence his judgment or the quality of his services [4] ^ 

 
 
Case Citation Type How Cited Grouped with Q # Why Relevant? Why Distinguished or Analogous?
69-13-C Distinguishing Precedent Explicitly Discussed None 3 ^ % Engineer has a land interest %  [1]

% Engineer is hired to make a professional judgment that will affect his land interest % [3, 6] ^ 

^ % Engineer reveals his land interest to the client % [4]

% The client does not object to the land interest % [5]

% The Code has changed % (See below) ^ 

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:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
II.4.a. Changed Explicitly Discussed 8., 8(a). None ^ Engineer has a client [3]

Engineer has a known conflict of interest [1, 3] ^ 

^ % Engineer's primary obligation is to reveal his conflict of interest (rather than "endeavoring to avoid the conflict of interest" as in old code) % [4] ^ 

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