WALKWAY DISASTER

Summary:
On 1981, Kansas City Hyatt Regency walk-way collapse received extensive coverage in the New
York Times some four years after its occurrence.
A judge, James B. Deutsch, found the structural engineers for the Hyatt Regency Hotel guilty of
gross negligence in the 1981 collapse of two suspended walkways in the hotel lobby that killed
114 people.
Responsibility for the collapse, it was decided lay in the engineering design for the suspended
walk-ways.
A major cause of fatalities was the landing of the concrete 4th floor walkway onto the crowded
2nd floor walkway.
Discovered a significant change in the design of the walkways.
The picture below explains the difference between the design and the actual.

Violation to the Code of Ethics:

II.1.a
If engineers judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life of property,
they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
Explanation:
The engineer of the walkway must notify the client in order to avoid the accident

II.1.b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with
applicable standards.
Explanation:
The engineers of the walkway have neglected some standard which threaten many peoples lives.
III.1.a

Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.

Explanation:
The engineers must recognize the mistake and they must be ready to be put in the jail.
III.2.a. Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs, career guidance for youths; and
work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their community.
Explanation:
What the engineers do have proved that they do not concern about the advancement and the wellbeing of the community.
Stakeholders and their Interest:
1.
2.
3.

Hyatt City Management : they who responsible to the construction and all things
regarding to the building.
Engineer
Public
walkway.

: he who designs the walkway.

: they who must be assured that they are safe to use the

Conclusion:
It is clear that the mistake is on the Hyatt City Management and Engineer. Their action is not a
small mistake. It is a big one. They have lied to the public. They did not realize that this action
will endanger the public safety and also endanger the trust of the public to the engineers. This
action must be punished with a great punishment in order to make them wary and also to warn
other engineers who want to act like them.

Case 70: XYZ Hose Co.

Summary:
Farmers use anhydrous ammonia to fertilize their fields. The anhydrous ammonia reacts violently
with water, so care must be exercised in disbursing it.
The farmers rent or purchase hoses that connect the tanks to perforated hollow blades that can be
knifed through the soil to spread the ammonia.
For years, the industry standard hose was one made of steel-meshed reinforced rubber, which
was similar in construction to steel-reinforced automobile tires.
Approximately, 15 years ago, a new, heavy-duty plastic became available that could replace the
steel in the hoses. The plastics were less expensive, lighter, and easier to process that the steelbraided rubber.
The plastic met the industry standards. XYZ began marketing the plastic-reinforced hose to
farmers.
As result of a test, the plastic did not react immediately to the anhydrous ammonia, however,
over the years the plastic degrade and lose some of its mechanical properties.
After a few years, several accidents occurred in which XYZ hoses ruptured during use and
blinded and severely injured the farmers using them.
XYZ argued that the farmers have misused the hoses.
Violation to Code of Ethics:
II.1.a
If engineers judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life of property,
they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
Explanation:
After knowing that their product is unsafe, XYZ should tell the farmers to be careful in using the
hoses they produced.
II.3.a
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or
testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements,
or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
Explanation:
What XYZ have done is not a kind of objective and truthful professional reports, statements of
testimony. They blamed the farmers and did not acknowledge their mistake.

III.2.a Engineers shall seek opportunities to participate in civic affairs, career guidance for
youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their community.
Explanation:
XYZ products do not commit to the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their
community.
Stakeholders and their Interest:
1.
Farmers
products they used are safe.

: users of XYZs products. They must be ensured that the

2.
XYZ
: company who produces the hoses for the farmer. They
want to make hoses with low production cost.
Conclusion:
There is no alternative solutions except XYZ must recognize their mistake and the must pay for
the farmers recovery.

Case 69: Working Overtime

Summary:
Ryan Redgrave, young and inexperienced in industry, possesses superb qualifications in statistics and
computer programming and applications. He was hired by XYZ to improve quality control in plastic parts.
Ryan noted that one vendor, IMP, has no consistency in their batch-to-batch color.
Mark, a personable young man about Ryans age, asked Ryan help in solving consistency problem.
Ryan was able to suggest some formulation changes to Mark to improve the color consistency. To show his
gratitude, Mark took Ryan and his wife to an expensive restaurant for dinner.
Their friendship runs. Mark urged Ryan to recommend that XYZ buy more of its plastic from IMP. Ryan did
recommend and XYZ buy more from IMP. A small increase was put into effect, although procurement told
Ryan that IMPs price was the highest of any of the plastics vendors with which XYZ dealt.
Violation to Code of Ethics:
II.5.b
Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to
influence the award of a contract by public authority or which may be reasonably construed by the public as
having the effect of intent to influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other
valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage
fee in order to secure work, except in a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or
marketing agencies retained by them.
Explanation:
It is clear that all Mark does to Ryan is only to secure work. Mark gives everything to Ryan only because Ryan
is in an important position. Ryan should not accept any gift from Mark in order to avoid deceptive acts.

Stakeholders and their interest:

1.

Ryan Redgrave

2.

Mark
as the supplier of XYZ.

3.

XYZ
production cost.

4.

IMP

: he just wants to make a friendship with Mark

: a person from an XYZs supplier. He wants to secure the position of IMP

: the company where Ryan works. This company interest is to reduce the

: the supplier of XYZ. It wants to keep the contract with XYZ.

Conclusion:
I think the case is a complicated case. The only solution is by breaking Ryan Redgrave role. Ryan has no
authority to make any decision related to the supplier contract.