Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 25-5-52 (2026)
Manner of Compensation, Etc., Provided by Chapter Exclusive.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Except as provided in this chapter, no employee of any employer subject to this chapter, nor the personal representative, surviving spouse, or next of kin of the employee shall have a right to any other method, form, or amount of compensation or damages for an injury or death occasioned by an accident or occupational disease proximately resulting from and while engaged in the actual performance of the duties of his or her employment and from a cause originating in such employment or determination thereof.
(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7545; Code 1940, T. 26, §271; Acts 1973, No. 1062, p. 1750, §8; Acts 1992, No. 92-537, p. 1082, §12.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Busby v. Truswal Sys. Corp., 551 So. 2d 322 (Ala. 1989).
Busby v. Truswal Sys. Corp., 551 So. 2d 322 (Ala. 1989). “*325 The exclusivity provisions of the Act are found at Ala.Code 1975, §§ 25-5-52 and 25-5-53. Section 25-5-52 provides: "No employee of any employer subject to this article, nor the personal representative, surviving spouse or next of kin of any such employee shall have any…”
Ex Parte Shelby Cty. Health Care Auth., 850 So. 2d 332 (Ala. 2002). “The Hospital argues that the Court of Civil Appeals wrongly decided this matter because, it argues, that court failed to address the Act's exclusivity provisions, §§ 25-5-52 and -53, Ala.Code 1975. Specifically, the Hospital maintains that those statutes prohibit Britt from…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Carlton, 867 So. 2d 320 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “*322 See §§ 25-5-52; 25-5-53; 25-5-11, Ala.Code 1975.”
Yarchak v. Munford, Inc., 570 So. 2d 648 (Ala. 1990). “, as well as from the summary judgment for the attorney general in Yarchak's suit seeking damages for the wrongful death of his son and a judgment declaring that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Ala.Code…”
Whitson v. City of Hoover, 14 So. 3d 98 (Ala. 2009). “Code 1975, which provides: “Except as provided in this chapter, no employee of any employer subject to this chapter, nor the personal representative, surviving spouse or next of kin of any such employee shall have any right to any other method, form, or amount of compensation or…”
Lowman v. Piedmont Exec. Shirt Mfg. Co., 547 So. 2d 90 (Ala. 1989). “While researching to write Glenn , I questioned whether damages for fraudulent representations were "damages for any injury or death occasioned by any accident proximately resulting from and while engaged in the actual performance of the duties of his employment," within the…”
Beard v. Mobile Press Register, Inc., 908 So. 2d 932 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “The employer, in its answer to Beard's last amended complaint, denied the pertinent allegations in the complaint and asserted, among other defenses, that all of Beard's claims were barred by §§ 25-5-52 and 25-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, the so-called "exclusivity" provisions of the…”
Harris v. Beaulieu Grp., LLC, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (M.D. Ala. 2005). “See Ala.Code §§ 25-5-52, 25-5-53 (1975); (Def.”
Cason v. Miller, 202 So. 3d 669 (Ala. 2016). “Specifically, Rock Wool argued that §§ 25-5-52 and -53, Ala.Code 1975, which are commonly referred to as the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, prevented the Casons from being able to recover against Rock Wool in tort for the injuries Palmer incurred…”
Jones v. Ruth, 31 So. 3d 115 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “See Ala.Code 1975, §§ 25-5-52 and 25-5-53 (barring co-employee actions, except those based on willful conduct).”
Ex Parte Carlton, 867 So. 2d 332 (Ala. 2003). “See §§ 25-5-52, 25-5-53, and 25-5-11, Ala.Code 1975.”
Cool Temp, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 148 So. 3d 448 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “2 In response to the motion to dismiss, Pilkerton asserted that Cool Temp was liable under the “dual capacity” doctrine, under which an employer normally shielded from civil liability pursuant to § 25-5-52 “may become liable in tort to his own employee if he occupies, in…”
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.