Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-11-1 (2026)
Damages Assessed by Factfinder to Be Itemized; Future Damages Not to Be Reduced to Present Value.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
In any civil action based upon tort and any action for personal injury based upon breach of warranty, except actions for wrongful death pursuant to Sections 6-5-391 and 6-5-410, the damages assessed by the factfinder shall be itemized as follows:
(1) Past damages.
(2) Future damages.
(3) Punitive damages.
The factfinder shall not reduce any future damages to present value. Where the court determines that any one or more of the above categories is not recoverable in the action, those categories shall be omitted from the itemization.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-183, p. 245, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Smith, 719 So. 2d 797 (Ala. 1998).
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Smith, 719 So. 2d 797 (Ala. 1998). “" See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-1. Since then, cases dealing with verdicts from which more can be deciphered than previously was decipherable from the old general verdict form have produced a series of divided opinions.”
Clark v. Container Corp. of Am., Inc., 589 So. 2d 184 (Ala. 1991). “Of the total sum awarded, it is only the amount awarded for lost future wages ($289,800) that is in any way involved in this certified question, [1] because Container filed a post-trial motion requesting the court to structure the award of future damages in accordance with…”
Shoals Ford, Inc. v. McKinney, 605 So. 2d 1197 (Ala. 1992). “The Legislature has specifically provided, in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-1, that "[i]n any civil action based upon tort.”
Hood v. Bennitt (In Re Bennitt), 348 B.R. 820 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2006). “So too, it would be harmless error that the trial court failed to comply with Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-1 (Supp. 1988), which provides: “In- any civil action based upon tort .”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bowers, 752 So. 2d 1201 (Ala. 1999). “future pain and suffering and future medical expenses to the jury; (5) by allowing one of the Bowerses' expert witnesses to testify based on Internet sourcesabout the content of automobile-recall warnings; (6) by allowing one of the Bowerses' expert witnesses to perform an…”
Downs v. Lyles, 41 So. 3d 86 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Furthermore, because Downs and Dudley did not object to the use of the verdict form employed by the trial court, which did not require the jury to specify the amount of each type of damages awarded, as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-1, any error based on that ground cannot…”
Union SEC. Life Ins. Co. v. Crocker, 709 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. 1997). “Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-1. I believe that either party has a right to demand that the verdict form submitted to the jury require that.”
Coastal Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Cope., 697 So. 2d 48 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “So too, it would be harmless error that the trial court failed to comply with Ala.Code § 6-11-1 (Supp. 1988) [regarding itemizing damages].”
Guyoungtech USA, Inc. v. Dees, 156 So. 3d 374 (Ala. 2014). “Therefore, based on Guyoungtech’s failure to demonstrate that the improper admission of the mortality tables probably injuriously affected its substantial rights even though Guyoungtech had available to it the protection of § 6-11-1, Ala.Code 1975, I respectfully dissent from…”
Charter Hosp. of Mobile v. Weinberg, 558 So. 2d 909 (Ala. 1990). “If the legislation that became effective on that date (see § 6-11-1 et seq., Code 1975), which I have not in any way considered in this special concurrence, provides procedural due process safeguards and preserves inviolate the right to trial by jury, so that it passes…”
Mut. Assur., Inc. v. Schulte, 970 So. 2d 292 (Ala. 2007). “1991) (declaring part of § 6-11-1, and all of § 6-11-3, § 6-11-4, and § 6-11-5 unconstitutional); and Moore v.”
Indep. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 658 So. 2d 892 (Ala. 1994). “Although Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-1, requires that in all civil actions based on tort, the damages assessed by the factfinder must be itemized as to past damages, future damages, and punitive damages, that section is not applicable to cases where the plaintiff's right of action…”
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.