Fencing

Ohio adopted a statewide bridge-fencing policy in 1985 to deter objects being thrown or dropped onto roadways below, scoring bridges on risk factors and requiring fencing above a threshold. Implementation was slow: by the late 1980s, 461 bridges qualified, but only two fencing-specific contracts, covering 11 bridges, had been completed by 1990. That year, a concrete fragment killed Pietro Semadeni on a Cincinnati overpass that had qualified for fencing but hadn't received it, leading the Ohio Supreme Court to find ODOT negligent in 1996. By contrast, the court ruled this October that ODOT was not liable for Marquise Byrd's 2017 death on a Toledo bridge under reconstruction, since no policy required temporary fencing during that construction phase. ODOT's 2026 manual now addresses temporary fencing guidance.

In an Oct. 6 ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court found the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) was not liable for the 2017 death of Marquise Byrd, a passenger struck by a sandbag thrown from Toledo's Indiana Avenue bridge during reconstruction. Protective fencing had been removed on the side under construction, and the court held ODOT retained discretionary immunity because no policy specifically required temporary fencing during construction work.

The decision contrasts with a 1996 case, Semadeni v. ODOT, in which the court found ODOT negligent for delaying implementation of its 1985 statewide bridge-fencing policy after a motorist was killed by concrete dropped from a Cincinnati overpass in 1990. That policy required fencing on qualifying existing bridges but initially funded only a fraction of them.

Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented in the Toledo case, arguing ODOT's removal of existing fencing without replacement was a negligent policy failure similar to Semadeni, not a protected discretionary choice. The appellate court had earlier ruled against ODOT before the Supreme Court reversed that decision.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) introduced the "No Fencing at the United States Capitol Complex Act," legislation that would prohibit permanent fencing around the Capitol complex. The move comes years after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack led officials to erect a temporary security fence, which stood for about six months and prompted discussion at the time of making a permanent barrier part of broader security upgrades.

Norton, who has long opposed a permanent fence, argued it would send "an un-American message" by turning the Capitol into a fortress rather than addressing actual security threats, and called instead for investment in intelligence, technology and training. She also cited potential disruption to surrounding residential neighborhoods and businesses, noting that streets were blocked and residents forced onto alternate routes after Jan. 6. Van Hollen said the Capitol can be protected "without walling it off to the public." Norton is retiring at the end of her current term.