Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 35-15-1 (2026)
No Duty Owed Except as Provided in Section 35-15-3.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
An owner, lessee, or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry and use by others for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water sports, hiking, boating, sight-seeing, caving, climbing, rappelling, or other recreational purposes or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, use of structures or activities on such premises to persons entering for the above-stated purposes, except as provided in Section 35-15-3.
(Acts 1965, No. 463, p. 663, §1; Acts 1991, No. 91-666, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Glover v. City of Mobile, 417 So. 2d 175 (Ala. 1982).
Glover v. City of Mobile, 417 So. 2d 175 (Ala. 1982). “Plaintiff also maintains that the provisions of Code 1975, § 35-15-1 et seq., are both unconstitutional and inapplicable to the instant case.”
Henderson by Hartsfield v. Alabama Power, 627 So. 2d 878 (Ala. 1993). “) The judgment was reversed, however, because the trial judge had refused to submit to the jury the question of the applicability of Ala.Code 1975, § 35-15-1 et seq., as a defense to the action.”
George v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “First, the Government has renewed its contention (previously ruled on by this Court) that the Alabama Recreational Use Statute [CODE OF ALABAMA [1975], §§ 35-15-1, et seq. and 35-15-20, et seq.”
Hulgan v. City of Guntersville (Ex parte City of Guntersville), 238 So. 3d 1243 (Ala. 2017). “" Hulgan also alleged that the diagonal crossbar over which she says she tripped was a hidden danger; thus, Hulgan alleged that the City is not entitled to immunity under §§ 35-15-1 et seq. and 35-15-20 et seq., Ala.”
Ex parte State, 121 So. 3d 337 (Ala. 2013). “See Ala. Code 1975, § 35-15-1 et seq. Second, there is the fact, according to Judge Young’s submissions, that he relied upon information as to Sheriff Warren’s position and the position of a purported expert on gaming machines hired by “VictoryLand,” as “declared on television.”
Clark v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 606 F. Supp. 130 (N.D. Ala. 1985). “) applies to noncommercial public recreational landowners such as defendants, and provides them with even tighter limitations than §§ 35-15-1 through 5, as to their exposure to liability to recreational users.”
Russell v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 564 F. Supp. 1043 (N.D. Ala. 1983). “This limitation on TVA’s duty is set out in the Code of Alabama 1975, § 35-15-1, which provides in pertinent part: An owner, lessee or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry and use by others for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water…”
Grice v. City of Dothan, 670 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1987). “The defendant claims it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff’s claim is barred by §§ 35-15-1 *320 through 5, Code of Alabama (1975), and §§ 35-15-20 through 28, Code of Alabama (1975), which protects an owner of land from liability, where the land…”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “On November 3, 2017, the Town moved for a summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from suit pursuant to the recreational-use statutes found in § 35-15-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Specifically, the Town argued that it was entitled to the protections offered by those statutes…”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “On November 3, 2017, the Town moved for a summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from suit pursuant to the recreational-use statutes found in § 35-15-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Specifically, the Town argued that it was entitled to the protections offered by those statutes…”
McElrath v. Alabama Power Co., 554 So. 2d 994 (Ala. 1989). “and provide such landowners even greater protections than §§ 35-15-1 through -5.” Section 35-15-22 provides: “Except as specifically recognized by or provided in this article, an owner of outdoor recreational land who permits non-commercial public recreational use of such land…”
Ex parte The Pub. Parks & Rec. Bd. of the City of Scottsboro PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Karon Patrick v. The Pub. Parks & Rec. Bd. of the City of Scottsboro) (Jackson Circuit Court: CV-20-900182). (Ala. 2024). “Goose SC-2023-0720 Pond Colony, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jackson Circuit Court to vacate its order denying the Board's motion for a summary judgment and its order denying the Board's motion to reconsider and to enter a summary judgment for the…”
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.