Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-5-484 (2026)

Degree of Care Owed to Patient.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In performing professional services for a patient, a physician’s, surgeon’s, or dentist’s duty to the patient shall be to exercise such reasonable care, diligence, and skill as physicians, surgeons, and dentists in the same general neighborhood, and in the same general line of practice, ordinarily have and exercise in a like case. In the case of a hospital rendering services to a patient, the hospital must use that degree of care, skill, and diligence used by hospitals generally in the community.

(b) Neither a physician, a surgeon, a dentist nor a hospital shall be considered an insurer of the successful issue of treatment or service.

(Acts 1975, No. 513, p. 148, §6.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Zills v. Brown, 382 So. 2d 528 (Ala. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Zills v. Brown, 382 So. 2d 528 (Ala. 1980). · cites it 8× “" Code 1975, § 6-5-484. This standard of care which the legislature adopted follows very closely the standard of care specified and formulated in prior court decisions, and commonly denominated the "locality rule.”

George H. Lanier Mem'l Hosp. v. Andrews, 901 So. 2d 714 (Ala. 2004). · cites it 8× “Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-484; see also § 6-5-548(a).”

Breaux v. Thurston, 888 So. 2d 1208 (Ala. 2003). · cites it 7× “The Court emphasized the fact that "the legislature has codified the standard of care to be exercised by physicians in this state," citing § 6-5-484, Ala.Code 1975; that "[t]his statutory standard is clear and unambiguous"; and that "[t]he Code section clearly states an…”

Shumaker v. Johnson, 571 So. 2d 991 (Ala. 1990). · cites it 7× “[The majority opinion is predicated upon there being no mention of a physician's "good faith" in the performance of his or her professional duties in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-484. There is no definition of "same general neighborhood" in § 6-5-484.”

Drs. Lane, Bryant, Eubanks & Dulaney v. Otts, 412 So. 2d 254 (Ala. 1982). · cites it 5× “SHORES, Justice (concurring in the result): I concur in the result only because I cannot agree that "the same general neighborhood" rule adopted by the legislature in § 6-5-484, Ala.Code 1975, was intended to mean the national medical community.”

Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall, 481 So. 2d 1126 (Ala. 1985). · cites it 4× “Marshall was a "patient" and Rosemont is a "hospital" within the meaning of § 6-5-484, supra. Therefore, the plaintiff can prevail only if he established at trial that Rosemont, in rendering or failing to render services to his mother, did not use that degree of care, skill and…”

Bain v. Colbert Cnty. Nw. Alabama Health Care Auth., 233 So. 3d 945 (Ala. 2017). · cites it 3× “Code 1975 (“the AMLA”), set forth the duty that a hospital owes to a patient, see § 6-5-484, we- are not persuaded that the legislature, gave the Board authority to create a nondelegable duty to be imposed on hospitals beyond what was specifically set forth by the legislature in…”

Ketchup v. Howard, 543 S.E.2d 371 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Ala.Code § 6-5-484; Wells v. Storey, 1999 WL 1065143 (No.”

Giles v. Brookwood Health Servs., Inc., 5 So. 3d 533 (Ala. 2008). · cites it 2× “1991) (quoting Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-484(a)). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, Giles must establish the standard of care applicable to Dr.”

Lamont v. Brookwood Health Servs., Inc., 446 So. 2d 1018 (Ala. 1983). · cites it 4× “Lemmon indicates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and further that his opinion that Brookwood conformed to the standard of care exercised by other hospitals in the general area as required by § 6-5-484, Code 1975. To exemplify its position in that regard, Brookwood…”

Fain v. Smith, 479 So. 2d 1150 (Ala. 1985). · cites it 2× “Section 6-5-484, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "In performing professional services for a patient, a physician's, surgeon's or dentist's duty to the patient shall be to exercise such reasonable care, diligence and skill as physicians, surgeons, and dentists in the same general…”

Ensor v. Wilson by & Through Wilson, 519 So. 2d 1244 (Ala. 1987). · cites it 2× “" Under the principles approved in Wozny, supra, and the standard of care set out in Code of 1975, § 6-5-484, [1] this evidence sufficiently disclosed Dr.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— Ala. Code § 6-5-484(a) — 26 cases

George H. Lanier Mem'l Hosp. v. Andrews, 901 So. 2d 714 (Ala. 2004). “Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-484; see also § 6-5-548(a).”

Breaux v. Thurston, 888 So. 2d 1208 (Ala. 2003). “The Court emphasized the fact that "the legislature has codified the standard of care to be exercised by physicians in this state," citing § 6-5-484, Ala.Code 1975; that "[t]his statutory standard is clear and unambiguous"; and that "[t]he Code section clearly states an…”

Giles v. Brookwood Health Servs., Inc., 5 So. 3d 533 (Ala. 2008). “1991) (quoting Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-484(a)). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, Giles must establish the standard of care applicable to Dr.”

Bain v. Colbert Cnty. Nw. Alabama Health Care Auth., 233 So. 3d 945 (Ala. 2017). “Code 1975 (“the AMLA”), set forth the duty that a hospital owes to a patient, see § 6-5-484, we- are not persuaded that the legislature, gave the Board authority to create a nondelegable duty to be imposed on hospitals beyond what was specifically set forth by the legislature in…”

Zills v. Brown, 382 So. 2d 528 (Ala. 1980). “" Code 1975, § 6-5-484. This standard of care which the legislature adopted follows very closely the standard of care specified and formulated in prior court decisions, and commonly denominated the "locality rule.”

— Ala. Code § 6-5-484(b) — 6 cases

Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall, 481 So. 2d 1126 (Ala. 1985). “Marshall was a "patient" and Rosemont is a "hospital" within the meaning of § 6-5-484, supra. Therefore, the plaintiff can prevail only if he established at trial that Rosemont, in rendering or failing to render services to his mother, did not use that degree of care, skill and…”

Shumaker v. Johnson, 571 So. 2d 991 (Ala. 1990). “[The majority opinion is predicated upon there being no mention of a physician's "good faith" in the performance of his or her professional duties in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-484. There is no definition of "same general neighborhood" in § 6-5-484.”

Downey v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 662 So. 2d 1152 (Ala. 1995).

Fuqua v. V.A. Hosp. (N.D. Ala. 2021).

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.