Ohio's highest court has ruled that the state's transportation department cannot be held liable for the death of a Toledo front-seat passenger who was killed when a sandbag was dropped from a bridge onto Interstate 75 in December 2017. The Ohio Supreme Court sided with the Ohio Department of Transportation in a 6-1 decision, overturning a lower appellate ruling that had found the agency could bear some responsibility for Marquise Byrd's death.
The case traces back to Dec. 19, 2017, when a sandbag weighing between 30 and 50 pounds was thrown from the Indiana Avenue bridge over I-75 and crashed through the windshield of Byrd's vehicle, according to court records reviewed by CourtListener. Byrd was later found unconscious in his car with sand covering the interior and exterior, and he died from his injuries. As Cleveland.com reported, a teenager who threw the sandbag into the southbound lanes was later found guilty of murder in juvenile court.
Byrd's mother, Patricia Wilkes, sued ODOT in the Ohio Court of Claims, alleging wrongful death and arguing the agency had been negligent in how it handled bridge safety during construction. Court filings reviewed by CourtListener show that protective vandal fencing remained on the bridge's south side but had been removed from the north side during reconstruction — the side from which the sandbag was thrown. Wilkes contended ODOT lacked a policy governing temporary vandal fencing during bridge rehabilitation work, even though the agency's own July 2016 policy required fencing on bridges over vehicular traffic, including interstates like I-75.
A Legal Back-and-Forth Over Years
The litigation moved through multiple stages before reaching the state's highest court. The Ohio Court of Claims initially rejected ODOT's argument that it was immune from liability, but ultimately entered judgment for ODOT on Jan. 12, 2024, ruling that Wilkes's attorneys had not fully proved every element of their wrongful-death case, per the court opinion posted on CourtListener.
Wilkes then appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which reversed course. That court found ODOT had breached its duty to motorists by taking no measures to prevent future vandalism after removing the protective fencing, and it sent the case back to the Court of Claims. ODOT then appealed that decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Sides With ODOT on Discretionary Immunity
On Tuesday, October 6, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Tenth District and ruled 6-1 in ODOT's favor, according to the station's report from 13abc. The case was remanded to the Ohio Court of Claims with instructions to dismiss Wilkes's lawsuit outright, per the same account.
Court News Ohio reported that the justices found ODOT was immune from the lawsuit under the doctrine of discretionary immunity, a legal principle that shields government agencies from liability when a policy decision involves a high degree of official judgment or discretion. The outlet's summary of the opinion states the court applied this standard specifically to ODOT's decision not to install protective fencing at the bridge construction site.
Why Full Fencing Wasn't in Place
During the reconstruction project, ODOT had installed vandal-protective fencing along the side of the bridge where pedestrians were permitted to walk, while the side closed to foot traffic — the side from which the sandbag was dropped — did not have that fencing in place. Barricades and signs were used to direct pedestrians and drivers to the appropriate side of the bridge during construction, and the agency relied on sandbags to hold those barricades and signs in place at the work site. The Bridge Design Manual notes, per CourtListener's review of the record, that vandal fencing exists specifically to discourage people from throwing or dropping objects onto traffic below.
The bridge carried significant traffic into the city, and completely closing it during construction was not considered an option. ODOT's policy called for vandal-protective fencing on bridges crossing another road or highway, but that policy reportedly did not extend to areas actively under construction — a gap that was central to the dispute over whether the agency's inaction amounted to negligence or a protected discretionary judgment call.
Aftermath and Broader Fencing Changes
In the wake of Byrd's death, ODOT planned to install temporary fencing on the overpass, according to an earlier report from 13abc. At the time, the agency indicated the fencing would also be used in future construction projects and would eventually be required on bridge projects statewide, though the dossier record does not confirm whether that statewide requirement was ultimately adopted.
The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling closes out a case that had spent years moving between courts with conflicting findings — the Court of Claims and the Tenth District Court of Appeals reaching opposite conclusions before the state's highest court issued its final word. For Byrd's family, the decision means the wrongful-death claim against ODOT will not proceed further, with the matter now headed back to the Court of Claims solely for dismissal.
