F-3: Sliding Retaining Wall

Statement of the Case: Engineer A had several years’ experience in the design of water and
sewer systems and municipal streets, but had no experience in the design of retaining walls. A
client, who was building a large lake-view house on the lower slopes of a hill, asked Engineer A
to design a retaining wall 3 m high and 50 m long to provide a flat lawn area in front of the
house. Engineer A accepted the assignment, even though he had never designed a retaining wall
before. His university education, some 20 years earlier, had touched briefly on the topic of
retaining wall design, so Engineer A consulted the concrete design textbook used in that course
and took dimensions, bar size, and spacing from a diagram in the textbook. He then produced

drawings and specifications for the client, who hired a contractor to build the wall.

Question: Was this effort adequate for a professional engineer?

Outcome: Soon after construction, the wall’s foundation failed by sliding. In the investigation
that followed, it was revealed that Engineer A had performed no foundation investigation. At the
very least, he should have drilled a few hand-auger holes and performed soil classification to
estimate bearing resistance, compressibility, and so on. He made no checks for sliding and made
no provision in the design to resist sliding. He did not consult any current codes, but simply
copied the old textbook design. Moreover, the textbook diagram illustrated structural aspects
only, not foundation details, and the textbook stated this fact. The client launched a successful
lawsuit. Engineer A was also disciplined under the provincial professional engineering Act.

Authors’ Comments: Competence is the result of education and experience. Although Engineer A was competent in his established field, he was not competent in the area for which his client

was paying, and while he made a minimal attempt to learn about the topic, his knowledge was

superficial. An engineer or geoscientist need not be an expert in every phase of a proposed

project before accepting it; however, a professional must be sufficiently familiar with the subject

to know that he or she can become competent through study or research in a reasonable period of

time, or that a colleague or consultant can be hired, without delaying the project, at reasonable

expense. The key point is that the professional’s lack of competence must not put the client’s

project at risk.

________________________________________________________

F-3: Sliding Retaining Wall

Statement of the Case: Engineer A had several years’ experience in the design of water and

sewer systems and municipal streets, but had no experience in the design of retaining walls. A

client, who was building a large lake-view house on the lower slopes of a hill, asked Engineer A

to design a retaining wall 3 m high and 50 m long to provide a flat lawn area in front of the

house. Engineer A accepted the assignment, even though he had never designed a retaining wall

before. His university education, some 20 years earlier, had touched briefly on the topic of

retaining wall design, so Engineer A consulted the concrete design textbook used in that course

and took dimensions, bar size, and spacing from a diagram in the textbook. He then produced

drawings and specifications for the client, who hired a contractor to build the wall.

Make an NPPE QUESTION based on 1. Mill’s Utilitarianism.

2. Locke’s Rights Ethics.

3. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics.

4. Kant’s formalism

______________________

NPPE-Style Question — F3: Sliding Retaining Wall

Before accepting the assignment, Engineer A recognizes that he has no practical experience designing retaining walls. Although accepting the project would provide additional income and satisfy the client, Engineer A believes that a professional engineer has a duty to practise only in areas in which the engineer is competent, or to obtain appropriate expert assistance. He therefore declines to design the wall independently and recommends that an engineer experienced in retaining-wall design be engaged.

Engineer A makes this decision because he believes following his professional duty is the right thing to do, regardless of the financial benefit he might lose or the inconvenience to the client.

Which ethical theory most closely reflects Engineer A's reasoning?

1. Mill’s Utilitarianism
2. Locke’s Rights Ethics
3. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
4. Kant’s Formalism

Correct answer: 4. Kant’s Formalism ✅

The strongest clue is:

Engineer A acts according to his duty because he believes it is right, regardless of the consequences.

That is the central idea being tested under Kant's Formalism.

Engineer A's reasoning is essentially:

“As a professional engineer, I have a duty not to undertake work beyond my competence. Even if I lose the fee, I should fulfill that duty.”

Why not the others?

1. Mill’s Utilitarianism ❌
Mill would focus on consequences. For example, Engineer A might compare the benefit of accepting the project against the possibility of wall failure, property damage, injuries, financial losses, and effects on everyone involved.

2. Locke’s Rights Ethics ❌
This would emphasize rights—for example, the client's or public's right not to be exposed to unreasonable risks.

3. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics ❌
This would emphasize Engineer A's character and virtues, such as prudence, honesty, humility, and recognizing the limits of his competence.

4. Kant’s Formalism ✅
The emphasis is:

“This is my professional duty, so I must do it even if doing so costs me money.”

NPPE shortcut

For these four theories, look for the reason behind the decision, not merely the decision itself:

Mill → “What produces the best overall consequences?”
Locke → “Whose rights must be protected?”
Aristotle → “What would a virtuous professional do?”
Kant → “What is my duty, regardless of the consequences?” ✅