Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 35-15-22 (2026)
Inspection and Warning Not Required.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, laws through the 2026 Regular Session
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 owes no duty of care to inspect or keep such land safe for entry or use by any person for any recreational purpose, or to give warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such land to persons entering for such purposes.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-825, p. 1468, §3.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Hulgan v. City of Guntersville (Ex parte City of Guntersville), 238 So. 3d 1243 (Ala. 2017).
Hulgan v. City of Guntersville (Ex parte City of Guntersville), 238 So. 3d 1243 (Ala. 2017). “The recreational use statutes appearing in Article 2 provide the following limitations on landowner duty and liability: " '§ 35-15-22[, Ala. Code 1975 ]. " 'Except as specifically recognized by or provided in this article, an owner of outdoor recreational land who permits…”
George v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “The additional protection afforded by Article 2 arises from §§ 35-15-22 and 35-15-23 and not § 35-15-24.”
City of Montgomery v. Mary Ann Patterson., 80 So. 3d 264 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “1 The City filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim, relying upon statutes limiting liability of owners of premises used for sporting or recreational purposes (see Ala.Code 1975, §§ 35-15-22 and 35-15-23); however, that motion was…”
McElrath v. Alabama Power Co., 554 So. 2d 994 (Ala. 1989). “” 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 owes no duty of care to inspect or keep such land safe for entry or use by any…”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “The recreational use statutes appearing in Article 2 provide the following limitations on landowner duty and liability: " ' "§ 35-15-22[, Ala. Code 1975 ]. " ' "Except as specifically recognized by or provided in this article, an owner of outdoor recreational land who permits…”
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)., 420 So. 3d 1008 (Ala. 2024). “See Ala. Code 1975, § 35-15-22 (stating, in relevant part, that an owner of outdoor recreational land "owes no duty of care to inspect or keep such land safe for entry or use by any person for any recreational purpose, or to give warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure,…”
City of Geneva v. Yarbrough, 707 So. 2d 623 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “The plaintiff contends that § 35-15-24(a) applies in this case and defeats the immunity that would be afforded the City by § 35-15-22. Section 35-15-24(a) provides: “(a) Nothing in this article limits in any way legal liability which otherwise might exist when such owner has…”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “The recreational use statutes appearing in Article 2 provide the following limitations on landowner duty and liability: " ' "§ 35-15-22[, Ala. Code 1975 ]. " ' "Except as specifically recognized by or provided in this article, an owner of outdoor recreational land who permits…”
Shirley v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Park & Rec. Auth., 163 So. 3d 352 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “” Section 35-15-22, Ala.Code 1975, 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 owes no duty of care to inspect or keep such land safe for entry…”
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.