HOW TO APPROACH CASE STUDY QUESTIONS
Step-by-Step Framework
- Identify the ethical and/or legal issues in the given scenario
- Identify all stakeholders and their roles/responsibilities
- Apply ethical principles from NSPE/NEC Code of Ethics
- Apply legal frameworks (tort, negligence, liability, contract law)
- State your judgment — who is ethical/unethical and why
- Recommend corrective measures — what should be done going forward
Key Ethical Principles to Quote (NSPE/NEC Code of Ethics)
| # | Principle |
|---|---|
| 1 | Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public |
| 2 | Perform services only in areas of competence |
| 3 | Act as faithful agents and trustees for clients and employers |
| 4 | Not engage in conflicts of interest |
| 5 | Not disclose confidential information without proper consent |
| 6 | Not accept remuneration that creates a conflict of interest |
| 7 | Not injure the professional reputation of other engineers |
| 8 | Have proper regard for safety of all persons affected by their work |
Key Legal Concepts
| Concept | Definition |
|---|---|
| Tort | A civil wrong that causes harm to another person, giving the injured party the right to claim damages |
| Negligence | Failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same situation |
| Liability | Legal responsibility for one’s actions or omissions that result in harm or damage |
| Vicarious Liability | Liability imposed on one party for the wrongful actions of another (e.g., employer liable for employee’s negligence) |
| Professional Negligence | Failure of a professional to meet the standard of care expected in their field, causing loss or injury to a client |
| Breach of Contract | Failure to fulfill the terms and conditions agreed upon in a contractual agreement |
CASE STUDY 1: CHEMICAL WASTE LEAKAGE — WHISTLEBLOWING VS JOB SECURITY 2079 REG [6]
PAST EXAM QUESTIONS:
- A factory was using a chemical in processing a product. The storage tank of chemical waste (which was hazardous to health and the environment) had a leak. During inspection, an engineer ‘A’ came to know that the leakage already taken place might cause adverse impact on health and hygiene of the surroundings. Mr. ‘A’ informed this to his boss about the event. Considering the possible social objection, the boss requested Mr. ‘A’ to be silent on the issue and also hinted to Mr. ‘A’ that he may have to be out of the job if the case would go into the hands of social reformers. If you are Mr. ‘A’, what you would do? Discuss. [5] (2079 Chaitra, Q2a)
Scenario
A factory’s chemical storage tank develops a leak. Er. A, an engineer working at the factory, discovers the hazard. Er. A’s boss asks him to keep silent about the issue, threatening job loss if he reports it.
Analysis
- Engineering involves social experimentation — engineers bear responsibility for public safety
- Public safety must come first above personal job security
- Professionals face disciplinary action from NEC for unethical acts (silence = complicity)
- Whistleblowing is an ethical duty when public health and environment are at risk
Decision & Recommendation
- Quit the job but NOT stay silent
- Report the hazard to environmental authorities immediately
- Document the hazard with evidence (photos, samples, records)
- Ethical principles violated by the boss: Hold paramount public safety (#1), Faithful agent (#3)
CASE STUDY 2: CONSULTING ENGINEER & FRIEND SUPPLYING MATERIALS — CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Scenario
A consulting engineer is working on a project where his best friend is the material supplier. The community raises concerns about potential bias and asks the engineer to quit.
Analysis
- The code of ethics binds all professionals regardless of personal relationships
- Engineers must act as faithful agents with professional independence
- Quality of materials must be checked rigorously regardless of who the supplier is
- The relationship itself is not unethical, but failing to maintain objectivity would be
Decision & Recommendation
- Convince the community that material quality will be rigorously tested per specifications
- Ensure all materials undergo standard quality assurance procedures
- If the community remains unconvinced, quit with respect to the profession rather than compromise integrity
- Principles at stake: Faithful agent (#3), No conflict of interest (#4)
CASE STUDY 3: BHERI RIVER BRIDGE COLLAPSE — PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Scenario
A 187-meter suspension bridge over the Bheri River collapsed on 25 December 2007, killing 18+ people. The stakeholders were:
| Role | Organization/Person |
|---|---|
| Owner | DDC-Surkhet |
| Supervisor | DTO-Surkhet |
| Consultant | FACE (consulting firm) |
| Contractor | DC Nirwan Sewa |
| Fabricator | Hulas Steel |
The collapse was caused by faulty bulldog grips (cable clamps).
Responsibility Analysis
| Stakeholder | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Consultant (FACE) | Should have verified the quality of bulldog grips and supervised installation — failed in professional oversight duty |
| Supervisor (DTO-Surkhet) | Should have been aware of construction quality issues and enforced standards |
| Contractor (DC Nirwan Sewa) | Should have followed instructions to properly tighten the bulldog grips |
| Owner (DDC-Surkhet) | Should not have opened the bridge for public use without proper completion certificate and safety verification |
Key Lesson: All parties share responsibility. The consulting engineer bears the primary professional duty to verify structural safety. This case demonstrates vicarious liability and professional negligence.
CASE STUDY 4: CEMENT MORTAR RATIO MANIPULATION — QUALITY COMPROMISE
Scenario
Er. Satyaman (supervising engineer) notices that his contractor friend Er. Ramesh is using:
- 1:6 mortar instead of specified 1:4 mortar
- 1:3:6 concrete instead of specified 1:2:4 concrete
Analysis
| Person | Ethical Assessment |
|---|---|
| Er. Ramesh (Contractor) |
Unethical:
|
| Er. Satyaman (Supervisor) |
Duty to act:
|
CASE STUDY 5: CONTRACTOR REQUESTS CONSULTANT TO PREPARE RUNNING BILL
Scenario
A consultant/supervising engineer is asked by the contractor to prepare the contractor’s running bill for payment processing.
Judgment
The consultant MUST refuse.
- Preparing the contractor’s bill creates a conflict of interest — the consultant is supposed to verify the bill, not prepare it
- Violates: No accepting remuneration creating conflict (#6), Act as faithful agent (#3)
- This is against the code of ethics and could constitute collusion
Five Important Rules for Consulting Engineers
| # | Rule |
|---|---|
| 1 | Public Safety: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public |
| 2 | Competence: Perform services only in areas of one’s competence |
| 3 | Sealing/Signing: Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner |
| 4 | Faithful Agent: Act as faithful agents/trustees for clients and employers |
| 5 | No Conflict of Interest: Avoid all conflicts of interest and maintain professional independence |
CASE STUDY 6: SLIPPERY FLOOR — SUBCONTRACTOR ON FRIEND’S RECOMMENDATION
Scenario
Engineers slipped on a poorly constructed floor. The flooring work had been subcontracted to Mr. Hari based on the recommendation of Mr. Shyam Lal (the main contractor/engineer).
Responsibility Analysis
Shyam Lal is primarily responsible because:
- Safety regard (#8): Failed to ensure proper regard for safety of persons affected by the work
- Lack of inspection: Did not inspect or supervise the subcontractor’s work quality
- Conflict of interest (#4): Recommended a subcontractor based on personal friendship rather than competence
- As the main contractor, Shyam Lal bears vicarious liability for the subcontractor’s work
CASE STUDY 7: RCC BRIDGE CRACKS — JOINT RESPONSIBILITY 2078 BAK [8] 2074 REG [10]
PAST EXAM QUESTIONS:
- An Engineer designed a RCC Bridge on behalf of consultant. A class contractor constructed the bridge. After the completion of the construction, traffic was allowed. Six month of after operation, cracks developed in the bridge. A probe team was established by road department and you are a member of that team. During investigation it was found that the design procedure was okay, but the quality of steel material used was not duly tested. The contractor argued that the procedure of construction was in accordance with the instruction of engineer and specification, however, the workmanship was found not as per specification. There was also lack of proper supervision by the consultant. The design load for the bridge was 20 tons. It was also reported that there happen to pass more than 20 tons vehicles also. The consultant was good friend of contractor. Being a member of probe team, what is your judgment on the failure of this bridge? Explain. [8] (2078 Kartik, Q5)
- A RCC Bridge was designed by the Designer on behalf of Consultant. This was Constructed by the reputed “A” Class contractor. After the Completion of the Construction, traffic was allowed on the bridge. After Six Months of operation there were crack in the Bridge. A Probe Team was established by Road department. The Design Procedure was Okay, but it was found that quality of steel material used was not duly tested. The Contractor argued that the procedure of construction was in accordance with the instruction of Engineer and specification. There was also lack of proper supervision by the Consultant. The Design load for the Bridge was 20 tons. It was also reported that there happen to pass more than 20 tons vehicles also. The Consultant was good friend of Contractor. Being a member of Probe Team, what is your judgment on the failure of this bridge? [10] (2074 Bhadra, Q4)
Scenario
An RCC bridge develops cracks within 6 months of construction. Investigation reveals:
- Steel was not tested before use in construction
- Poor workmanship and inadequate quality control
- 20+ ton vehicles were using a bridge designed for only 20 tons
- The consultant engineer and contractor were friends
Responsibility Analysis
| Stakeholder | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Consultant Engineer |
|
| Contractor |
|
| Road Department |
|
CASE STUDY 8: CONFIDENTIALITY BREACH — VIEWING COMPUTER FILES
Scenario
Er. Ramesh opens and views Er. Sudhir’s confidential salary files on a shared office computer without permission.
Analysis
| Person | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Er. Ramesh |
Unethical:
|
| Er. Sudhir |
Should:
|
CASE STUDY 9: DINNER INVITATION FROM CONTRACTOR FRIEND 2078 REG [4] 2071 BAK [8]
PAST EXAM QUESTIONS:
- You are working as an engineer from a consulting firm in Gorkha. Your friend Mr. John is working as a project engineer from contractor in the same project. Mr. John invites you for dinner every Saturday to celebrate a weekend and request you to share the guest house for your accommodation. What would you do? Prepare a case study based on code of ethics. Make supplementary assumptions if necessary. [4] (2078 Chaitra, Q2b)
- You are working as an Engineer from a Consulting Engineering Firm. Your contractor friend Er. Hari is working as a Project Engineer from contractor office in the same project. Mr. Hari invites you for dinner every Friday to celebrate “good Friday” and request you to share the guest house for your accommodation. What would you do in maintaining the code of ethics and friendship relation? [8] (2071 Magh, Q3)
Scenario
A consulting engineer is invited for dinner by a contractor friend who is working on a project the engineer supervises. The contractor also offers to share his guesthouse during a site visit.
Decision & Recommendation
The consulting engineer MUST reject the offer.
- No accepting remuneration/benefits that create conflict of interest (#6)
- Must act as faithful agent to the client, not the contractor (#3)
- Must maintain professional distance from parties whose work is being supervised
- Accepting hospitality can compromise objectivity in supervision and certification
- Even the appearance of impropriety can damage professional credibility
CASE STUDY 10: SUBSTANDARD MATERIAL SUPPLY — COST-SHARING OFFER
Scenario
Due to a road blockade, specification-grade materials are unavailable. A substandard material is available locally, and the supplier offers 50% cost savings if the engineers accept the inferior material.
Analysis
Both Narendra (supplier) and Ramchandra (engineer) are unethical if they proceed:
- No accepting remuneration/benefits creating conflict of interest (#6)
- Must act as faithful agent for the client (#3)
- Reject the substandard materials and demand specification-grade materials
- Wait for the road blockade to clear, or source from alternative routes
- Using substandard materials endangers public safety (#1) and is professional negligence
CASE STUDY 11: BUILDING ON RIVER BANK — CONTINUE OR STOP?
Scenario
A building is being constructed on a river bank and is 20% complete. The site is found to be vulnerable to floods.
Recommendation
STOP the construction immediately.
- Money is less important than life — hold paramount public safety (#1)
- The surveyor/geotechnical engineer should have advised against constructing at a flood-vulnerable location
- Continuing would be professional negligence
- Sunk cost of 20% work is not justification for endangering lives
- Conduct a proper site investigation and flood risk assessment before any further decisions
ADDITIONAL PAST EXAM CASE STUDIES
Building Crack Case 2081 REG 2082 BAK [8]
Scenario: A building develops cracks. Investigation reveals: no soil investigation was conducted, the municipality approved construction without verifying structural design, and the structural design itself was missing.
| Stakeholder | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| (a) House Owner | Victim — relied on professional advice and governmental approval in good faith |
| (b) Engineer | Primary negligence — failed to conduct soil investigation and prepare structural design; professional negligence and tort liability |
| (c) Municipality | Dereliction of regulatory duty — approved construction without mandatory structural design verification |
| (d) Who bears primary responsibility? | The engineer bears primary responsibility for professional negligence; municipality shares regulatory liability |
Dam Construction in Pristine Ecosystem 2080 REG [6]
PAST EXAM QUESTION:
- You are a part of a civil engineering team tasked with constructing a dam in a remote area. The dam will provide irrigation facilities, essential water supply for nearby communities and generate hydroelectric power, boosting regional development. However, the proposed site is within a pristine ecosystem, home to several endangered species and culturally significant sites for indigenous communities. Building the dam will involve clearing large areas of forest, flooding habitats, and potentially displacing indigenous communities. Being a member of a team, discuss the case and recommend your views and opinion in this situation. [6] (2080 Chaitra, Q7)
Scenario: A dam project is proposed in a pristine ecosystem. This presents a classic development vs. environment dilemma.
Recommendations:
- Conduct thorough Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
- Explore alternative sites with less environmental sensitivity
- Engage in comprehensive stakeholder consultation (local communities, environmentalists, government)
- Incorporate design modifications to minimize ecological impact
- Develop mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts
- Provide compensation for affected communities and ecosystems
Engineer as Political Leader Pressurizing Contractor 2077 REG [4]
PAST EXAM QUESTION:
- Engineer as a political leader pressurize a contractor for low quality construction and bargains with contractor for unwanted payment. Write down for and against it. [4] (2077 Chaitra, Q7)
Scenario: An engineer who is also a political leader uses political influence to pressurize a contractor on a project.
This is unethical because:
- Public safety must come first — political pressure compromises quality (#1)
- Constitutes abuse of power and dual-role conflict
- Amounts to corruption and undue influence on professional work
- Creates a clear conflict of interest (#4) between political and professional roles
Fake Engineering Degrees Case 2073 BAK [4]
PAST EXAM QUESTION:
- Recently the MPCD arrested few engineers of different stream on charge of producing and possessing fake engineering degrees and certifications. It is also not the case that the arrested engineers did not go to any engineering college. They did go to recognized engineering colleges and had attended the classes regularly during their academic course but had failed in few semester exams. Despite their repeated attempts, they were unable to overcome the fail results resulting harsh situation facing barrier for their career further education and professional development. In the meantime, they decided to get fake degrees and certifications to eliminate severe situations. Before arrest, they were working in esteemed company with recognizable performance. How do you judge the behavior/act of arrested engineers on which background? What will be your suggestion to mitigate such situation/incidents never happen again in the society. [4] (2073 Magh, Q2b)
Scenario: Individuals are found practicing engineering with fake/forged academic degrees.
This is unethical (violates code of conduct), immoral (endangers public), and illegal (fraud and forgery).
Suggestions to prevent:- Strict verification of academic credentials at all levels
- NEC registration mandatory for all practicing engineers
- Digital verification systems linked to universities
- Harsh penalties including criminal prosecution, professional blacklisting, and public disclosure
Shashikala — Road Alignment Manipulation 2081 REG [5]
PAST EXAM QUESTION:
- Shashikala is working as an engineer in municipality. One of the road construction project to be implemented by her office is surveyed and designed by a consulting firm that is owned by her college friend Mr. Pran. Mr. Pran had contracted with the municipality office to survey and design the road through open competitive bidding system. While executing the survey work Shashikala convinced Pran to change the road alignment through her land that would increase the value of her land but would not benefit public so far. The project designed by Pran was presented at municipal office in presence of concerned employees including Shashikala and project was approved. Complain against it has been filed for misuse of Shashikala’s authority and making loss of public property. As a member of investigation committee on this complain, whom would you declare as guilt and why – Engineer Shashikala or owner of consulting firm, Pran? [5] (2081 Chaitra, Q7)
Both are guilty:
- Shashikala: Misuse of authority, conflict of interest (#4), personal gain over public interest — violates “hold paramount public safety” (#1)
- Pran: Complicit in changing design for non-public benefit, failed as faithful agent to the municipality client (#3)
WAN/LAN Negligent Installation 2075 REG [5]
PAST EXAM QUESTION:
- ABC computer consulting Pvt. Ltd was awarded a contract to install a WAN/LAN connection in XYZ Pvt. Ltd. Ram a computer engineer from ABC, went to install the WAN/LAN in XYZ. In the meantime, he was unsatisfied with his job, so installed WAN/LAN at XYZ negligently. After few weeks, manager of XYZ informed to manager of ABC that the installed system is not functioning properly. In response, Hari another engineer from ABC went back to check the installed system and found that Ram’s mistake was there. It will cost NRs. 2 lakhs to maintain the system again. ABC claimed but XYZ refused to pay. Discuss who is to blame on which background. [5] (2075 Bhadra, Q7)
- Ram: Professional negligence — personal dissatisfaction does not justify substandard work
- ABC Pvt. Ltd: Vicarious liability — employer is liable for employee’s acts during employment. Must bear the cost of rectification
- XYZ Pvt. Ltd: Not at fault — rightfully refused to pay for defective work
Sub-contractor Unpaid Labourers 2071 REG [8]
PAST EXAM QUESTION:
- Sub-contractor Mr. A was severely beaten by his labors because he had not paid them for more than seven months. During investigation it was revealed that client did not pay to the contractor and contractor did not pay to the subcontractor. The client didn’t pay because consultant did not submit the necessary bill report. The consultant says the work is defective and quality of the work is not as per specifications. While the contractor does not agree because it was not informed on site and blames that the consultant wants covert money. Discuss the case considering contract law, tort, liability and negligence whatsoever applicable. [8] (2071 Bhadra, Q3)
- Consultant: Negligence in not submitting bill report on time; if demanding covert money — corruption and breach of code of ethics
- Client: Contractual obligation to pay upon proper certification; withholding without cause is breach of contract
- Contractor: Should have raised formal disputes through contract mechanisms; liable for subcontractor payments
- Sub-contractor: Liable under Labour Law for timely payment to labourers regardless of upstream payment issues
Ronaldo — Telephone Line Under-estimation 2079 BAK [4]
PAST EXAM QUESTION:
- Mr. Ronaldo, an engineering graduate, carried out survey for telephone line requirement for a newly growth city near Lalitpur district. He estimated 1000 lines for five year period. But in 3 years period, the demand for telephone line year dramatically increased and application for telephone line was reached 2000. Discuss this case reference to reasonable skill and competency of a professional. [4] (2079 Shrawan, Q2b)
- Professional negligence — failed to exercise reasonable skill and competency
- Should have considered growth trends, urbanization rate, and population projections
- Demonstrates breach of duty of care — element of negligence
- Engineers must design for realistic future scenarios, not just current demand
Samsung vs Apple — Intellectual Property 2069 REG [10]
PAST EXAM QUESTION:
- Recently Samsung Korea was asked to pay compensation of billions of dollar to Apple Inc. by an American court. What do you know about this case? Are you satisfied with the verdict? Express your opinions clearly. [10] (2069 Bhadra, Q5 OR)
- Classic patent and design infringement case — Samsung found to have copied Apple’s design patents
- Highlights the importance of Intellectual Property Rights in engineering and technology
- IP laws protect innovation and encourage original research and development
- Engineers must respect IP rights — copying designs/technology without permission is both unethical and illegal
SUMMARY TABLES
Important Topics by Priority
| Topic | Marks | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| How to Approach Case Study Questions (Framework) | Always applicable | ★★★★★ |
| RCC Bridge Cracks (CS 7) | 8–10 | ★★★★★ |
| Building Crack Case (Additional) | 8 | ★★★★★ |
| Dinner Invitation (CS 9) | 4–8 | ★★★★ |
| Chemical Waste Leakage (CS 1) | 6 | ★★★★ |
| Dam in Pristine Ecosystem (Additional) | 6 | ★★★★ |
| Bheri River Bridge Collapse (CS 3) | Conceptual | ★★★ |
| All other case studies | 4–6 | ★★★ |
Most Repeated Case Study Questions
| Case Study | Exam Appearances | Max Marks |
|---|---|---|
| RCC Bridge Cracks (CS 7) | 2078 BAK, 2074 REG | 10 |
| Building Crack Case | 2081 REG, 2082 BAK | 8 |
| Dinner Invitation (CS 9) | 2078 REG, 2071 BAK | 8 |
| Chemical Waste Leakage (CS 1) | 2079 REG | 6 |
| Dam Construction (Additional) | 2080 REG | 6 |
| Political Leader Case | 2077 REG | 4 |
| Fake Degrees Case | 2073 BAK | 4 |
Common Stakeholder Responsibilities
| Stakeholder | Primary Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Consultant/Supervising Engineer | Verify quality, supervise work, ensure testing, maintain independence from contractor |
| Contractor | Follow specifications, use tested/approved materials, maintain workmanship standards |
| Owner/Client | Not open project for use without completion certificate, ensure proper approvals |
| Regulatory Body (Municipality/Dept) | Verify designs, enforce regulations, issue permits only after proper review |
| Fabricator/Supplier | Supply materials meeting specifications, provide test certificates |
Common Ethical Violations in Case Studies
- Conflict of Interest: Friendship between consultant and contractor, supplier relationships
- Compromised Quality: Using substandard materials, wrong mix ratios, untested steel
- Failure to Report: Silence on safety hazards, covering up defects
- Accepting Benefits: Dinner invitations, hospitality, cost-sharing offers from contractors
- Confidentiality Breach: Accessing others’ private information without consent
- Professional Negligence: No soil investigation, missing structural design, no material testing
Legal Concepts to Apply in Case Studies
| Legal Concept | When to Apply |
|---|---|
| Negligence | Engineer fails to perform duties with reasonable care (untested materials, no site investigation) |
| Tort | Any civil wrong resulting in harm (bridge collapse, building cracks causing injury) |
| Vicarious Liability | Employer/main contractor liable for subcontractor’s or employee’s negligence |
| Breach of Contract | Not following agreed specifications (wrong mortar ratio, substandard materials) |
| Professional Negligence | Failure to meet the professional standard of care expected in engineering practice |
Key Points to Remember
- Framework: Always follow: Identify → Apply → Judge → Recommend
- Core Ethical Principles (7 key ones):
- Hold paramount public safety
- Perform services only in areas of competence
- Act as faithful agents/trustees
- Avoid conflicts of interest
- Maintain confidentiality
- Not accept improper remuneration
- Not injure professional reputation of others
- In every case study: Quote at least 2–3 ethical principles by number
- Always identify ALL stakeholders and assign specific responsibilities
- End with concrete recommendations — not vague statements