Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-5-793 (2026)

Liability of Covered Entity for Negligence, Premises Liability, Etc., Under Certain Claims or Causes of Action.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This section applies to both of the following causes of action that accrue before the effective date of this article:

(1) A health emergency claim for which a court holds that neither Section 6-5-792 nor the liability limiting provisions of any gubernatorial emergency order applies.

(2) Any cause of action relating to an act or omission of the health care provider during the performance or provision of health care services or treatment that resulted from, was negatively affected by, was negatively impacted by a lack of resources caused by, or was done in response to the Coronavirus pandemic or the state’s response to the pandemic, for which a court holds that neither Section 6-5-794 nor the liability limiting provisions of any gubernatorial emergency order applies.

(b) For any health emergency claim or cause of action under subsection (a), the following provisions shall apply:

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, as a matter of law, a covered entity shall not be liable for negligence, premises liability, or for any non-wanton, non-willful, or non-intentional civil cause of action to which this section applies, unless the claimant shows by clear and convincing evidence that the covered entity did not reasonably attempt to comply with the then applicable public health guidance.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for a cause of action to which this section applies, a covered entity shall not be liable for damages from mental anguish or emotional distress or for punitive damages, but may be liable for economic compensatory damages in a cause of action that does not involve serious physical injury.

(3) This section does not prohibit an award of punitive damages for wrongful death claims, but no other damages shall be allowed for such claims.

(Act 2021-4, §4.)

Notes of Decisions
Ex parte Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Theresa Johnson, individually & as of the Est. of Nathaniel Johnson v. Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc.) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-21-900980). (Ala. 2024). · cites it 12× “Johnson argued in her Rule 59(e) motion that there was a factual dispute as to whether Jackson Hospital's conduct was wanton, that claims of wanton conduct were exempted from the ACIA under § 6-5-793, Ala. Code 1975, and that that Code section further provided an exception to…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-793(a)(1) — 1 case
Ex parte Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Theresa Johnson, individually & as of the Est. of Nathaniel Johnson v. Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc.) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-21-900980). (Ala. 2024). “Johnson argued in her Rule 59(e) motion that there was a factual dispute as to whether Jackson Hospital's conduct was wanton, that claims of wanton conduct were exempted from the ACIA under § 6-5-793, Ala. Code 1975, and that that Code section further provided an exception to…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-793(b) — 1 case
Ex parte Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Theresa Johnson, individually & as of the Est. of Nathaniel Johnson v. Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc.) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-21-900980). (Ala. 2024). “Johnson argued in her Rule 59(e) motion that there was a factual dispute as to whether Jackson Hospital's conduct was wanton, that claims of wanton conduct were exempted from the ACIA under § 6-5-793, Ala. Code 1975, and that that Code section further provided an exception to…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-793(b)(1) — 1 case
Ex parte Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Theresa Johnson, individually & as of the Est. of Nathaniel Johnson v. Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc.) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-21-900980). (Ala. 2024). “Johnson argued in her Rule 59(e) motion that there was a factual dispute as to whether Jackson Hospital's conduct was wanton, that claims of wanton conduct were exempted from the ACIA under § 6-5-793, Ala. Code 1975, and that that Code section further provided an exception to…”
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.