Ohio Supreme Court Ruled on DOT Liability
The state agency was found not liable for a 2017 death involving a sandbag dropped from a bridge.
Updated on Oct. 6, 2026 in Law
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the Ohio Department of Transportation is not liable for the 2017 death of Marquise Byrd. The court reversed a previous appeals court decision, citing government immunity for discretionary policy choices.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies that government agencies maintain immunity for discretionary decisions, such as the placement of safety fencing during bridge construction. This decision sets a precedent for how state liability is determined in cases involving infrastructure policy.
The 6-1 ruling determined that the agency possesses immunity for discretionary policy decisions. This decision overturned the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which had previously found the state agency liable.
The players
Ohio Supreme Court
This is the state of Ohio's highest judicial body which interprets the law and handles final appeals.
Ohio Department of Transportation
This state agency is responsible for planning, building, and maintaining the transportation infrastructure across Ohio.
Marquise Byrd
He was the individual who died in 2017 after a sandbag struck his vehicle on I-75.
The details
Marquise Byrd died in December 2017 after a sandbag was dropped from the Indiana Avenue overpass onto his vehicle on I-75. The court found that because the bridge was under active reconstruction, the removal of vandal-protective fencing was a protected discretionary choice under agency policy.
Timeline
December 2017: Marquise Byrd died after being struck by a sandbag.
October 6, 2026: The Ohio Supreme Court issued the ruling.
Political Context
The ruling underscores the significant legal barriers created by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects state agencies from litigation regarding discretionary policy decisions. This decision highlights the ongoing tension between public accountability and the legal protections afforded to government entities during infrastructure projects.
This decision limits the ability of citizens to hold state agencies accountable in court for injuries resulting from discretionary policy choices on infrastructure. Residents should note that state liability for road safety measures is restricted under these current legal standards.
The takeaway
The court's decision clarifies that government agencies generally cannot be held liable for injuries stemming from policy decisions made during ongoing construction projects. Citizens impacted by infrastructure-related incidents face a high legal bar when pursuing compensation from state entities.
Further reading
For more information on legal precedents and judicial rulings in the region, visit the Law section.
