Is this ethical?
Surveyor A works on a survey of a tract of land that requires a large topographic survey.?ÿ He buys a new robot to do the work.?ÿ While he is doing the work, he figures out that the robot is giving bad data.?ÿ On about 10 percent of the shots the instrument gives a zero elevation instead of the true elevation.?ÿ He emails the salesman, and the salesman agrees to take the robot back.
Surveyor A then completes the topographic survey using RTK, and does a good job with it.?ÿ He submits his survey
The opposing litigants' lawyer subpoenas Surveyor A's records.?ÿ Surveyor A responds appropriately by producing ALL of his data to the opposing lawyers, including the data with the intermittent zero elevation.?ÿ He does NOT use any of the data from the instrument that had the problem, but in accordance with the subpoena to submit all date, he does submit the data?ÿ as part of his overall data set.
?ÿ
At trial, opposing surveyor, Surveyor B, produces a big map showing the raw data from the defective instrument plotted on a huge map.?ÿ He testifies in court that Surveyor A's work is defective and has zero elevations in some places.?ÿ He uses the 0.00' elevation data to show that Surveyor A indicates that the land has holes in it over 120 feet deep (using the erroneous 0.00 elevation erroneous points).?ÿ He does not mention that he could have used the point filter to eliminate 0.00 elev shots from the grid.?ÿ He simply testifies that Surveyor A made horrible mistakes, all based upon the raw data file, never touted as being accurate by Surveyor A as even usable.
Is that ethical conduct for an expert witness before the court?
?ÿ
....He does not mention that he could have used the point filter to eliminate 0.00 elev shots from the grid.?ÿ He simply testifies that Surveyor A made horrible mistakes, all based upon the raw data file, never touted as being accurate by Surveyor A as even usable.
Is that ethical conduct for an expert witness before the court?
?ÿ
In a pure sense of "ethics" I think it's abhorrent to intentionally prevaricate (look it up) in an attempt to color a situation for the benefit of one client over another.?ÿ A surveyor with integrity?ÿmust be able to present facts to the public in a fashion that is void of personal inflections.?ÿ But after a long and illustrious career I've seen far worse...believe me.?ÿ
I guess the courtroom is the last place?ÿone can expect to see ethics.?ÿ?ÿCourtrooms?ÿare?ÿa cross between?ÿbattle in the?ÿRoman Coliseum and a chess game.?ÿ And while there may have been a few folks that attempted to take the Holy Bible with them when thrown to the lions; save only a few the results were very predictable.
The fact that?ÿa surveyor?ÿwas willing to testify that another surveyor "made horrible mistakes" is more unsettling to me than anything else.?ÿ?ÿSurveyor A?ÿmay have that opinion, but a good defense would be able to identify?ÿto the court it was merely?ÿhis opinion.?ÿ Whether in discovery, depositions or proceedings everything has a rebuttal.
I would imagine any one of us could be critical of each others field procedures.?ÿ But procedures can vary;?ÿthe results of those procedures is actually what it sounds like was being questioned.?ÿ When you get your cotton to the gin the scales master doesn't ask you how you got there...he asks you what quality is your cotton.
I feel?ÿthe scenario you described?ÿis unethical.?ÿ I would bet money that surveyor A makes more money from the attorney's stick up his butt than he ever did surveying.
I don't know, but IF I were the atty, or the surveyor, for the opposite team, I would have a real hay day, tearing up the attorney who used this argument you stated above.
O! It would be a slaughter!
N
No, and it really speaks to the quality of his work that he produced a topographical map without removing the zero elevations. What did the original hard copy look like? If the witnesses did not look the same he obviously used erroneous procedures.
Morally reprehensible.?ÿ Whether you can get an ethics action from his board is another matter.
Defense:?ÿ So this is the data plot YOU created with holes in it.?ÿ We have Exhibit X here showing what Surveyor A actually delivered to the client, and his raw data showing that he took care to recheck and correct data that his instruments didn't measure the first time.
It is irrelevant and should have been bounced for not have any bearing on the case.
Surveyor A published his finding, signed sealed and delivered, there is no other version to consider, in or out of court.
Surveyor B took Surveyor A's bad raw data that was trashpiled and published those findings. Whatever he shows on a drawing is his work.
Surveyor B is trying to pass off a his own pile of doo-doo as Surveyor A's final survey, that is not ethical and probably means it is bad professional conduct too.
?ÿ
I try my best to be open minded and always remember that my solution to the problem at hand may not be the only one or the best one. At the end of the day I could have taught a lesson or received one. How can one surveyor testify in that way against another without weighing all the facts? Never know, the neighbor may hold senior title. Won't know til you look.
B is an unethical sleaze.
Why were they in court? Ethics and Morals are insignificant in court when $$$$$$ are involved. "B" sounds like he was "bought".?ÿ?ÿ
Seems like an extremely bad look for surveyor B.?ÿ Exactly what "horrible mistakes" did surveyor B claim surveyor A made??ÿ Not noticing the broken instrument until he put the points in cad??ÿ
Wouldn't the finished topographic survey that Surveyor A produced and submitted to his client be prima facie evidence that the faulty data wasn't used and is irrelevant??ÿ
Did Surveyor B or another surveyor produce a product that varied substantially?ÿ from what A produced??ÿ I mean, what's the issue that brought this to court, and if it's not that there's a question about the topo, then why are they focusing on that?
For those of us that ain't real good with them fancy words:
Disparaging a fellow certificate holder without cause is a violation of the rules of professional responsibility.
Besides losing the case, Surveyor B may also end up losing his license...
Disparaging a fellow certificate holder without cause is a violation of the rules of professional responsibility.
Besides losing the case, Surveyor B may also end up losing his license...
I would think that A's attorney will have no trouble completely discrediting B's "expert" testimony.?ÿ To the point where this will be B's last kick at the expert testimony game.?ÿ ?ÿ
Sad that the object was to put one surveyor against the other.?ÿ ?ÿI am sure there is way more to the story and history.?ÿ But we should professionally try to work with each other and help each other.?ÿ ?ÿ
I recently was awarded a construction layout.?ÿ ?ÿI visited the site looking for the property corners and couldn't find them.?ÿ ?ÿFind the control that was given for the construction plans.?ÿ ?ÿInformed the construction company that no property corners have been found.?ÿ ?ÿThey called the survey company and they returned and staked the property corners.?ÿ ?ÿI revisit the site and find that the corners are in a different spot than expected so I shot in the control and the new property corners.?ÿ ?ÿVerified my concern and was correct that the property corners are off by 4 ft.?ÿ ?ÿI call the surveyor and politely spoke to him of what I found and even sent my data to him.?ÿ ?ÿHe checks and agrees and pays us to stake the corners using his survey data.?ÿ I could of been a jerk and left his mistake which would of been a mistake on our part and gone to court.?ÿ ?ÿBuy WHY??ÿ We are human and mistakes are inevitable.?ÿ ?ÿThat is why, we as surveyors, being the expert measures, check, check and re-check.?ÿ?ÿ
Don't even get me started on ethics.
Have to agree that the finished, stamped, signed product is all that matters here.
But for entertainment purposes here are some questions:?ÿ Did Surveyor A make it clear that there was a block of points in the data set that he discarded due to equipment error??ÿ Was Surveyor B made aware of this??ÿ Was Surveyor B shown the final product with which to compare??ÿ If so, Surveyor B would have seen the 'holes' in his own survey and, being a responsible, prudent surveyor, would have checked his work before making any statements.?ÿ Surveyor B has egg on his face if he didn't cross check his drawing with Surveyor A.?ÿ
Now, if Surveyor B wasn't told that there was faulty data that was not used in the final product, and not shown the final product, then he would have made the drawing and a better statement would have been, "Based on the data provided to me, with no other knowledge (of final product, data collection, etc.), there appears to be problem areas n the contour map which should have been seen/corrected..."?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
My Daddy always said "You're only as good as your checks."?ÿ I believed him.
?ÿ
It seems that there was a problem with the topo that was delivered, before this action. Kinda hard to tell from the original post.
I agree, the bogus drawing created by B should have been refuted and ignored, but we really don't know. It also could have been a 5 minute segment in a 3 hour dog and pony show presented by B.
Perhaps Frank can elaborate a bit... the outcome of the proceedings would interest me also.
"found guilty in the court of public opinion" as is often the case in these chat rooms 😉
?ÿ He simply testifies that Surveyor A made horrible mistakes, all based upon the raw data file, never touted as being accurate by Surveyor A as even usable.
So he's testifying that Surveyor A made horrible mistakes, and as evidence of this he is using information that Surveyor A did not make public.
Yeah, that's how this works.
I started to reply to this but the angle on my right shoulder said: "If you can't say something nice it probably is not worth saying".?ÿ