Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 35-15-20 (2026)
Legislative Intent.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
It is hereby declared that there is a need for outdoor recreational areas in this state which are open for public use and enjoyment; that the use and maintenance of these areas will provide beauty and openness for the benefit of the public and also assist in preserving the health, safety, and welfare of the population; that it is in the public interest to encourage owners of land to make such areas available to the public for non-commercial recreational purposes by limiting such owners’ liability towards persons entering thereon for such purposes; that such limitation on liability would encourage owners of land to allow non-commercial public recreational use of land which would not otherwise be open to the public, thereby reducing state expenditures needed to provide such areas.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-825, p. 1468, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Grice v. City of Dothan, 670 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1987).
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…”
Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “§§ 33-41-101 to -106 (West 1999); Conn. Gen.Stat.”
Conway v. Town of Wilton, 680 A.2d 242 (Conn. 1996). “, Ala. Code §§ 35-15-20 through 35-15-28 (1991 & Sup.”
Hulgan v. City of Guntersville (Ex parte City of Guntersville), 238 So. 3d 1243 (Ala. 2017). “"Unlike Article 1, Article 2, consisting of §§ 35-15-20 through -28, [Ala. Code 1975,] applies specifically to owners of noncommercial public recreational land, such as the City here.”
George v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “; CODE OF ALABAMA [1975], §§ 35-15-20, et seq. The parties have stipulated that the alligator involved in the attack on Mr.”
Clark v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 606 F. Supp. 130 (N.D. Ala. 1985). “Clark argues that the 1981 Act (§ 35-15-20 through 28) repealed the prior Act (§ 35-15-1 through 5) because of alleged *132 inconsistencies between the two acts in light of the repealer clause included in the 1981 Act.”
Martin ex rel. Martin v. City of Gadsden, 584 So. 2d 796 (Ala. 1991). “As a result, they asserted that both the City and its agents were shielded from liability for Tyson’s injuries pursuant to § 35-15-20 et seq. Those sections, passed by the legislature in 1975 and amended in 1981, limit the tort liability of a private or public owner of land that…”
Gable v. City of Huntsville, 564 So. 2d 940 (Ala. 1990). “Under §§ 35-15-20 through -28, Ala.Code 1975 (Cum.”
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). “and § 35-15-20 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. We grant the petition and issue the writ.”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “" 'Unlike Article 1, Article 2, consisting of §§ 35-15-20 through -28, [Ala. Code 1975,] applies specifically to owners of noncommercial public recreational land, such as the City here.”
Keenum v. City of Huntsville, 575 So. 2d 1075 (Ala. 1991). “Sections 35-15-1 through -5 and §§ 35-15-20 through -28, Ala. Code 1975, generally insulate a municipality from liability regarding the noncommercial use of recreational land it owns and which is open to the public.”
Shirley v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Park & Rec. Auth., 163 So. 3d 352 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “” On August 14, 2013, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of PARA, stating that PARA was not liable pursuant to the limitations on liability set forth in Ala.”
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.