Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 35-15-24 (2026)
Otherwise Existing Liability Not Limited.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, laws through the 2026 Regular Session
(a) Nothing in this article limits in any way legal liability which otherwise might exist when such owner has actual knowledge:
(1) That the outdoor recreational land is being used for non-commercial recreational purposes;
(2) That a condition, use, structure, or activity exists which involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm;
(3) That the condition, use, structure, or activity is not apparent to the person or persons using the outdoor recreational land; and
(4) That having this knowledge, the owner chooses not to guard or warn, in disregard of the possible consequences.
(b) The test set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall exclude constructive knowledge by the owner as a basis of liability and does not create a duty to inspect the outdoor recreational land.
(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to create or expand any duty or ground of liability or cause of action for injury to persons on property.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-825, p. 1468, §5.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · 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). “Instead, Hulgan argued below and argues before this Court that she presented substantial evidence indicating that the conditions of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, which "carves out an exception to the liability limitations provided in §§ 35-15-22 and -23," Ex parte City of Geneva ,…”
George v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “” CODE OF ALABAMA [1975], § 35-15-24. Thus, the relevant inquiry becomes whether the willful and malicious requirements of § 35-15-3 were intended by the Legislature to be judicially engrafted onto § 35-15-24.”
Martin ex rel. Martin v. City of Gadsden, 584 So. 2d 796 (Ala. 1991). “Code 1975, § 35-15-23; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on § 35-15-24, which sets out an exception to the limitation of liability provided by § 35-15-23; and (3) whether the trial court erred by refusing to submit Tyson’s claim of wantonness to…”
Grice v. City of Dothan, 670 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1987). “The only exception to the limitation of liability provided in Article 2 of Chapter 15 is found in § 35-15-24 which reads in pertinent part as follows: (a) Nothing in this article limits in any way legal liability which otherwise might exist when such an owner has actual…”
Tabak v. State, 870 P.2d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “, Ala. Code § 35-15-24 (1991); Ariz. Rev. Stat.”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a violation of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, alleging that the Town was aware of the dangerous condition presented by the tree limb and swing and that the Town failed to "remove, guard, or warn against" it.”
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). “Finally, it argued that Patrick could not establish that the exception to the liability protections provided by the recreational-use statutes, which is set forth in § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, applies in this case.”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a violation of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, alleging that the Town was aware of the dangerous condition presented by the tree limb and swing and that the Town failed to "remove, guard, or warn against" it.”
Keenum v. City of Huntsville, 575 So. 2d 1075 (Ala. 1991). “1987), the federal district court, interpreting § 35-15-24, held that there must be a factual basis to support an allegation of actual knowledge and that reliance on the pleadings alone is insufficient to establish that basis.”
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.”
Gable v. City of Huntsville, 564 So. 2d 940 (Ala. 1990). “Code 1975, § 35-15-24 (Cum.Supp.1989); Grice v. City of Dothan, 670 F.”
Shirley v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Park & Rec. Auth., 163 So. 3d 352 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “1990), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama held that the owner of a public park was liable under § 35-15-24 for an attack by an alligator that had occurred at that public park based on the following evidence: “The Forest Service officials admit…”
Ala. Code § 35-15-24(a): 3 cases
George v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “” CODE OF ALABAMA [1975], § 35-15-24. Thus, the relevant inquiry becomes whether the willful and malicious requirements of § 35-15-3 were intended by the Legislature to be judicially engrafted onto § 35-15-24.”
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.”
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). “Finally, it argued that Patrick could not establish that the exception to the liability protections provided by the recreational-use statutes, which is set forth in § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, applies in this case.”
Ala. Code § 35-15-24(a)(1): 2 cases
Hulgan v. City of Guntersville (Ex parte City of Guntersville), 238 So. 3d 1243 (Ala. 2017). “Instead, Hulgan argued below and argues before this Court that she presented substantial evidence indicating that the conditions of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, which "carves out an exception to the liability limitations provided in §§ 35-15-22 and -23," Ex parte City of Geneva ,…”
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). “Finally, it argued that Patrick could not establish that the exception to the liability protections provided by the recreational-use statutes, which is set forth in § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, applies in this case.”
Ala. Code § 35-15-24(a)(2): 6 cases
Hulgan v. City of Guntersville (Ex parte City of Guntersville), 238 So. 3d 1243 (Ala. 2017). “Instead, Hulgan argued below and argues before this Court that she presented substantial evidence indicating that the conditions of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, which "carves out an exception to the liability limitations provided in §§ 35-15-22 and -23," Ex parte City of Geneva ,…”
George v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “” CODE OF ALABAMA [1975], § 35-15-24. Thus, the relevant inquiry becomes whether the willful and malicious requirements of § 35-15-3 were intended by the Legislature to be judicially engrafted onto § 35-15-24.”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a violation of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, alleging that the Town was aware of the dangerous condition presented by the tree limb and swing and that the Town failed to "remove, guard, or warn against" it.”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a violation of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, alleging that the Town was aware of the dangerous condition presented by the tree limb and swing and that the Town failed to "remove, guard, or warn against" it.”
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). “Finally, it argued that Patrick could not establish that the exception to the liability protections provided by the recreational-use statutes, which is set forth in § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, applies in this case.”
Ala. Code § 35-15-24(a)(3): 1 case
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). “Finally, it argued that Patrick could not establish that the exception to the liability protections provided by the recreational-use statutes, which is set forth in § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, applies in this case.”
Ala. Code § 35-15-24(a)(4): 4 cases
Hulgan v. City of Guntersville (Ex parte City of Guntersville), 238 So. 3d 1243 (Ala. 2017). “Instead, Hulgan argued below and argues before this Court that she presented substantial evidence indicating that the conditions of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, which "carves out an exception to the liability limitations provided in §§ 35-15-22 and -23," Ex parte City of Geneva ,…”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a violation of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, alleging that the Town was aware of the dangerous condition presented by the tree limb and swing and that the Town failed to "remove, guard, or warn against" it.”
Hatem v. Town of Dauphin Island) (Ex Parte Town of Dauphin Island (), 274 So. 3d 237 (Ala. 2018). “On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert a violation of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, alleging that the Town was aware of the dangerous condition presented by the tree limb and swing and that the Town failed to "remove, guard, or warn against" it.”
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). “Finally, it argued that Patrick could not establish that the exception to the liability protections provided by the recreational-use statutes, which is set forth in § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, applies in this case.”
Ala. Code § 35-15-24(a)(l): 1 case
Martin ex rel. Martin v. City of Gadsden, 584 So. 2d 796 (Ala. 1991). “Code 1975, § 35-15-23; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on § 35-15-24, which sets out an exception to the limitation of liability provided by § 35-15-23; and (3) whether the trial court erred by refusing to submit Tyson’s claim of wantonness to…”
Ala. Code § 35-15-24(b): 4 cases
Hulgan v. City of Guntersville (Ex parte City of Guntersville), 238 So. 3d 1243 (Ala. 2017). “Instead, Hulgan argued below and argues before this Court that she presented substantial evidence indicating that the conditions of § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, which "carves out an exception to the liability limitations provided in §§ 35-15-22 and -23," Ex parte City of Geneva ,…”
Martin ex rel. Martin v. City of Gadsden, 584 So. 2d 796 (Ala. 1991). “Code 1975, § 35-15-23; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on § 35-15-24, which sets out an exception to the limitation of liability provided by § 35-15-23; and (3) whether the trial court erred by refusing to submit Tyson’s claim of wantonness to…”
Keenum v. City of Huntsville, 575 So. 2d 1075 (Ala. 1991). “1987), the federal district court, interpreting § 35-15-24, held that there must be a factual basis to support an allegation of actual knowledge and that reliance on the pleadings alone is insufficient to establish that basis.”
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). “Finally, it argued that Patrick could not establish that the exception to the liability protections provided by the recreational-use statutes, which is set forth in § 35-15-24, Ala. Code 1975, applies in this case.”
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.