I can only assume you are talking about this: ... under the terms of the settlement, everyone involved is prohibited from discussing further details of the case ...
Not sure about ethical issue as it does seem as though he is trying to enlighten the public about a previous and apparently still existing potential safety issue. Now, legally ... he does seem to have violated the agreement while trying to abide by the Code of Ethics with regard to a known public safety concern.
There, I changed from the default "link" text. Better?
The public is not enlightened, since there is no clue given regarding the manufacturer or model. Nothing can be done to prevent further fatalities with the information given.
The PE in question was not a manufacturer, so the exemption does not apply.
PE has an obligation to both his client and the public at large. Public safety, though, is paramount. I propose the PE has an ethical obligation to provide the details to the CPSC.
When I link to articles, usually, I copy the title of the article, and paste it in between the link tags. No typing required. It also helps if you identify the journal. Sometimes, that is very important.
There are a number of ways we can react to the article. It helps if you point out what you think is interesting. I have posted an article on DFMA on my website, and I see some ethical issues, so I found that aspect interesting.
I've got a problem with a legal system that allows one victim to be bought off but does not correct the likely flaw in question on the existing products that are out there.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Kinda hoped this would generate more discussion, so let me add a few thoughts.
I assert this PE's primary duty is to public safety, which would preclude him agreeing to confidential settlement agreements such as this. However, such an outcome may limit his employ-ability as a forensic engineer, and limit a harmed plaintiff's ability to recover damages.
Greglocock,
Is it the legal system at fault? Seems to me the lawyer acted ethically in representing his client per legal ethics. It would be the engineer at fault for engaging in a contract that would very probably violate his paramount duty to public safety.
I am not sure it is the engineer's fault and not the company's. The company in my opinion has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. I am not allowed to disclose a lot of things to the public. I don't think the courts should allow this if their job is to serve the public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
How about unethical acts? In my own jurisdiction, the law pretty well follows the ethical rules. The author, however, is registered in New Jersey. The law there speaks of "disregarding" safety, rather than of safety being "paramount." See page 20.
HH,
Once settlement is agreed to, isn't the court pretty much out of the picture? Plaintive receives a sum in return for agreeing to stay mum.
Wouldn't the court be brought into the picture if the NDA is violated? If the court is to serve the public, any NDA claim involving public safety should just get thrown out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
stevenal, I've not read and fully digested the article but it seems he has some ethical lapses. All PEs are responsible to the public. Colorado law states clearly how to handle such situations and if the manufacturer has a safety problem, the PE needs to address that with the manufacturer and have them remedy it. I've written letters in the past, with warnings that failure to provide a remedy necessitates me legally to contact the appropriate authorities. Colorado law clearly states that PEs are responsible for all federal, state, and local laws, codes, regulations, etc. The manufacturer, as I've read the law, is no less responsible, whether they have to be forced to comply or willingly comply. Protecting its citizens is a government function, which many seem to misunderstand today.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:
