No city or town shall be liable for damages for injury done to or wrong suffered by any person or corporation, unless such injury or wrong was done or suffered through the neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness of some agent, officer, or employee of the municipality engaged in work therefor and while acting in the line of his or her duty, or unless the said injury or wrong was done or suffered through the neglect or carelessness or failure to remedy some defect in the streets, alleys, public ways, or buildings after the same had been called to the attention of the council or other governing body or after the same had existed for such an unreasonable length of time as to raise a presumption of knowledge of such defect on the part of the council or other governing body and whenever the city or town shall be made liable for damages by reason of the unauthorized or wrongful acts or negligence, carelessness, or unskillfulness of any person or corporation, then such person or corporation shall be liable to an action on the same account by the party so injured. However, no recovery may be had under any judgment or combination of judgments, whether direct or by way of indemnity under Section 11-47-24, or otherwise, arising out of a single occurrence, against a municipality, and/or any officer or officers, or employee or employees, or agents thereof, in excess of a total $100,000 per injured person up to a maximum of $300,000 per single occurrence, the limits set out in the provisions of Section 11-93-2 notwithstanding.
(Code 1907, §1273; Code 1923, §2029; Code 1940, T. 37, §502; Acts 1994, No. 94-641, p. 1202, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
City of Prattville v. Corley, 892 So. 2d 845 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 48× “1988)("Under the controlling statutory provision, Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-190, liability would attach to the Board if 1) an injury resulted from a condition caused by the Board's neglect, or 2) the Waleses' damage came about through the Board's neglect, carelessness or failure to…”
Harden v. City of Muscle Shoals) (In re City of Muscle Shoals (), 257 So. 3d 850 (Ala. 2018).
· cites it 21× “"[W]here a plaintiff alleges a factual pattern that demonstrates 'neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness' the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under Ala. Code 1975, § 11-47-190. Whether the plaintiff's allegations state a cause of action and whether the plaintiff has…”
Morrow v. Caldwell ex rel. Russell, 153 So. 3d 764 (Ala. 2014).
· cites it 39× “) On May 25, 2012, Morrow filed a motion asking the trial court for “a judgment declaring the statutory limitations of liability of $100,000, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-190, are applicable to Defendant Wayne Morrow in this case.”
Aliant Bank v. Four Star Invs., Inc., 244 So. 3d 896 (Ala. 2017).
· cites it 9× “They further argue that § 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975, which sets forth the immunity that applies to municipalities and their officers, operates to bar any action against them based on intentional torts as well; § 11-47-190 provides, in pertinent part: "No city or town shall be…”
Doe v. City of Demopolis, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (S.D. Ala. 2011).
· cites it 23× “51) interposes the following causes of action: (i) a claim against the City for violation of Alabama Code § 11-47-190 on the theory that the City, despite “knowledge of Smith’s obvious propensity for sexual abuse and molestation, .”
Ex Parte City of Tuskegee, 932 So. 2d 895 (Ala. 2005).
· cites it 10× “The City argues that it is immune from liability as to these claims under Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-190. Section 11-47-190 provides that a municipality is immune from tort liability "unless such injury or wrong was done or suffered through the neglect, carelessness or…”
Walker v. City of Huntsville, 62 So. 3d 474 (Ala. 2010).
· cites it 11× “Additional Claims Against the City Walker asserts three final claims against the City: malicious prosecution, the tort of outrage, and invasion of privacy, all based on the City's continued prosecution of Walker after she provided proof of her medical condition.”
Borders v. City of Huntsville, 875 So. 2d 1168 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 8× “In Franklin, supra, we stated in the context of claims for assault and battery, false imprisonment and false arrest, that "where a plaintiff alleges a factual pattern that demonstrates `neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness' the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under…”
Hardy v. Town of Hayneville, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (M.D. Ala. 1999).
· cites it 20× “The court stated that it was “unaware of any case in which a court applying Alabama law extended statutory discretionary function immunity to a municipality itself, in addition to its peace officers.”
Ex parte Harris, 216 So. 3d 1201 (Ala. 2016).
· cites it 7× “Here, Bryson asserted in her complaint claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and slander.”
Ott v. City of Mobile, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (S.D. Ala. 2001).
· cites it 10× “Count Five alleges that the City is responsible for Gamble’s negligence under Alabama Code § 11-47-190. DETERMINATIONS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACT On the night of February 24,1998, Gamble was an off duty police officer wearing street clothes and riding in a private vehicle.”
— Ala. Code § 11-47-190(1975) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.