Bridge Collapse and the Duty to Warn (ethics) - Essay Example

What is Right I believe that the engineer that conducted the initial inspection adequately did his part as mandated by the California Attorney General’s Opinion Number 85-208 (1985), that as the hired registered engineer assigned to investigate the structural integrity of the Swinging Bridge; he was able to conclude that it is stable and sound to provide adequate service. But he also added to his recommendation that further testing should be carried out and that protective coating should be applied even though the bridge was free from rust.

Noncompliance to his recommendations, added to that the regular swinging of the pedestrians, could have severely compromised the integrity of the structure and thus caused the accident. I believe that the court ruling in favor of the county is justifiable. For one, I do believe that the pedestrian should be responsible for their actions. It was them who engaged in a risky past time and they should in turn bear the consequences of their action. Secondly, they—anyone who engages in swinging the bridge should even be sanctioned for putting not just themselves at risk but other pedestrian as well who are using the bridge since their past time is creating potential danger to other people.

Third, I think that the engineer should not be held liable because he did perform his duty to warn the public through his report. What is Wrong On the other hand, it was the inaction of the county to the report that could have caused the collapse. It for instance did not follow the engineer’s recommendation of carrying out further tests to determine structural stability, and it did not apply the protective coating that would prevent the onslaught of rust. Furthermore, if further testing had been carried out after the initial survey, as was part of the recommendation of the investigating engineer seven years prior to the accident, the succeeding test/s that would be carried out in the bridge would have allowed the succeeding investigating engineer to see the damage that the ‘swinging’ is causing to the bridge and thus determine the structural stability of the bridge in his report.

If so, again, the incident could have been avoided. This will allow the engineer to again, adequately warn the public about the potential hazard of the bridge if it is continuously swing. The county also failed in addressing the illegal past time of the people, the Swinging Bridge is a public place, and since swinging it has been a well-known past time that pause potential danger not just to the actors doing the swinging but to other innocent pedestrian, it was the responsibility of the country to address the matter by creating ordinances that prohibits such activity.

I also believe that the court should have sanctioned the county. Despite the fact that