Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 25-5-61 (2026)
Persons Presumed Wholly Dependent.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
For the purposes of this article, the following described persons shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent:
(1) The wife, unless it is shown that she was voluntarily living apart from her husband at the time of his injury or death, or unless it is shown that the husband was not in any way contributing to her support and had not in any way contributed to her support for more than 12 months next preceding the occurrence of the injury causing his death;
(2) The husband, unless it is shown that he was voluntarily living apart from his wife at the time of her injury or death, or unless it is shown that the wife was not in any way contributing to his support and had not in any way contributed to his support for more than 12 months next preceding the occurrence of the injury causing her death; and
(3) Minor children under the age of 18 years and those over 18, if physically or mentally incapacitated from earning.
(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7552; Acts 1935, No. 387, p. 831; Acts 1936, Ex. Sess., No. 29, p. 9; Code 1940, T. 26, §280; Acts 1973, No. 1062, p. 1750, §15.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Read News Agency, Inc. v. Moman, 383 So. 2d 840 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980).
Read News Agency, Inc. v. Moman, 383 So. 2d 840 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980). “The defendants argue that the plaintiff made approximately $130,000 per year and the decedent made only approximately $17,000 and that there was no evidence that the decedent's salary was in any way intended or considered to be necessary for the support of her husband.”
Johnson v. Huxford Pole & Timber Co., 983 So. 2d 1133 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Code 1975, § 25-5-62, but also through the “conclusive presumption” provisions of Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-61. Section 25-5-61 provides, in pertinent part, that an employee’s wife will be conclusively presumed to have been wholly *1136 dependent unless one of two conditions…”
Kirkley v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 146 So. 3d 1041 (Ala. 2013). “§§ 25-5-61 and -65, Ala. Code 1975. This “quirk,” as the Tyson petitioners describe it, meant that Kirkley did not qualify to prosecute the wrongful-death action.”
Banks v. Premier Serv. Co., 184 So. 3d 370 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “§ 25-5-61, Ala.Code 1975. Even if not presumed wholly dependent, certain persons, including a deceased worker’s .”
Jimmy Stein Motor Lines, Inc. v. Griffin, 643 So. 2d 1388 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-61(3), states that “minor children under the age of 18 years and those over 18, if physically or mentally incapacitated from earning” are conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for compensation purposes.”
Ruiz v. Nat'l Dairy, LLC, 164 So. 3d 602 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “Christy is considered a dependent under Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-61(a), so she is a proper plaintiff in her capacity as a dependent.”
Goodloe v. Laroche Indus., Inc., 686 So. 2d 335 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “§ 25-5-61, Ala.Code 1975. Even if not presumed wholly dependent, certain persons, including a deceased worker’s wife and child, can receive compensation as the worker’s total dependents if they were wholly supported by the worker at the time of his death or had been for a…”
Blansit v. Cornelius & Rush Coal Co., 380 So. 2d 854 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979). “She is also presumptively wholly dependent under § 25-5-61. Were she the only dependent, she would only get fifty percent of deceased’s average weekly wage.”
Blansit v. Cornelius & Rush Coal Co., 380 So. 2d 859 (Ala. 1980). “§ 25-5-61 establishes a class of persons presumed wholly dependent, limited to a wife or husband and minor children.”
Cent. Foundry Co. v. Brown, 381 So. 2d 635 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979). “" § 25-5-61(3), Code of Alabama (1975). It is undisputed that both claimants are under the age of eighteen years and that they are the natural children of the deceased employee.”
Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Beck, 481 So. 2d 348 (Ala. 1985). “Loree also maintains that other statutory authority, namely § 25-5-61(3), evidences a legislative intent to protect children in her situation.”
Drummond Co., Inc. v. Boatman, 825 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “Boatman, as the worker's surviving spouse, qualifies as a "wholly dependent" person, under § 25-5-61(1), Ala.Code 1975. The first sentence of § 25-5-57(a)(5) refers to those situations in which an employee suffers a workplace-related injury and dies as a result of that injury.”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-61(1) — 4 cases
Johnson v. Huxford Pole & Timber Co., 983 So. 2d 1133 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Code 1975, § 25-5-62, but also through the “conclusive presumption” provisions of Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-61. Section 25-5-61 provides, in pertinent part, that an employee’s wife will be conclusively presumed to have been wholly *1136 dependent unless one of two conditions…”
Drummond Co., Inc. v. Boatman, 825 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “Boatman, as the worker's surviving spouse, qualifies as a "wholly dependent" person, under § 25-5-61(1), Ala.Code 1975. The first sentence of § 25-5-57(a)(5) refers to those situations in which an employee suffers a workplace-related injury and dies as a result of that injury.”
Careline of Alabama, Inc. v. Edwards, 733 So. 2d 433 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
— Ala. Code § 25-5-61(3) — 6 cases
Banks v. Premier Serv. Co., 184 So. 3d 370 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “§ 25-5-61, Ala.Code 1975. Even if not presumed wholly dependent, certain persons, including a deceased worker’s .”
Jimmy Stein Motor Lines, Inc. v. Griffin, 643 So. 2d 1388 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-61(3), states that “minor children under the age of 18 years and those over 18, if physically or mentally incapacitated from earning” are conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for compensation purposes.”
Cent. Foundry Co. v. Brown, 381 So. 2d 635 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979). “" § 25-5-61(3), Code of Alabama (1975). It is undisputed that both claimants are under the age of eighteen years and that they are the natural children of the deceased employee.”
Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Beck, 481 So. 2d 348 (Ala. 1985). “Loree also maintains that other statutory authority, namely § 25-5-61(3), evidences a legislative intent to protect children in her situation.”
Ex Parte Davis, 386 So. 2d 1144 (Ala. 1980).
— Ala. Code § 25-5-61(a) — 1 case
Ruiz v. Nat'l Dairy, LLC, 164 So. 3d 602 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “Christy is considered a dependent under Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-61(a), so she is a proper plaintiff in her capacity as a dependent.”
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.