Alabama

Recreational Use/Recreational Trespass Laws

Ala.Code 35-15-1 through 35-15-6

§ 35-15-1. No duty owed except as provided in Section 35-15-3

An owner, lessee or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry and use by others for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water sports, hiking, boating, sight-seeing, caving, climbing, rappelling or other recreational purposes or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, use of structures or activities on such premises to persons entering for the above-stated purposes, except as provided in section 35-15-3.

§ 35-15-2. Effect of permission to use premises

An owner, lessee or occupant of premises who gives permission to another to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, sight-see, cave, climb, rappel or engage in other sporting or recreational activities upon such premises does not thereby extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose nor constitute the person to whom permission has been granted the legal status of an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed or assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act of such person to whom permission has been granted, except as provided in section 35-15-4.

§ 35-15-3. Otherwise existing liability not limited

This article does not limit the liability which otherwise exists for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or for injury suffered in any case where permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, cave, climb, rappel or sight-see was granted for commercial enterprise for profit; or for injury caused by acts of persons to whom permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike or sight-see was granted to third persons as to whom the person granting permission, or the owner, lessee or occupant of the premises owned a duty to keep the premises safe or to warn of danger.

§ 35-15-4. General duty of care or ground of liability not created

Nothing in this article creates a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to person or property.

Financial Incentives for Public Access

Property Tax Incentives:
Current Use Programs: 

Alabama does have a current use statute for timber acres and agricultural property.

Statute: Public Ala. Code 1975 § 40-7-25.2

Method of Assessment: Current use formula is based on soil productivity for agriculture and forestry.

Application: Application Requirement

http://www.revenue.alabama.gov/advalorem/other/classes.htm
http://www.revenue.alabama.gov/advalorem/other/caltax.html

Current Use Taxation for open-space land: 

Alabama has no current use taxation to promote open space or recreation.

Tax incentive specifically for providing access: 

Alabama has no tax incentives to provide hunter access.

Tax Incentive when land is subject to Conservation Easement: 

Alabama has no tax incentives for land subject to conservation easements.

Alabama does purchase certain lands and waters to be set aside, managed and preserved for use as state parks, nature preserves, recreation areas, and wildlife management areas through its Alabama Forever Wild Land Trust. Ala.Const. Art. XI, § 219.07

View all states with no tax incentives when land is subject to conservation easementHide all states with no tax incentives when land is subject to conservation easement
Income Tax: 

Alabama has no tax credits or incentives for the donation of land or conservation easements.

View all states with no tax incentives for donation of land or conservation easement Hide all states with no tax incentives for donation of land or conservation easement
Hunter Access Program: 

No programs classified as “state administrated walk-in hunter access programs” were identified in this state via general internet search. However, for more accurate information regarding this state’s hunter access programs or efforts, please view the Hunting Heritage Action Plan Hunter Access Program Assessment Survey Report.

Case Law

Clark v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 606 F. Supp. 130 (N.D.Ala.1985)

-Sections 35-15-20 through 35-15-28 apply to noncommercial public recreational landowners and provide them with even tighter limitations than §§ 35-15-1 through 35-15-5 as to their exposure to liability to recreational users; §§ 35-15-20 through 35-15-28 recognize a public policy in Alabama to encourage public owners to allow the opening up and promotion of their facilities without exposing themselves to law suits.

Russell By and Through Russell v. TVA, 564 F.Supp. 1043 (N.D.Ala.1983)

-This section was enacted to insure that landowners were not to be held to a standard of due care toward persons upon their land with permission for hunting, fishing and recreational purposes.
-Licensee's entrance on the land carries with it no right to expect the land to be made safe for his reception, but he must assume the risk of whatever may be encountered. Once he is there, the law only requires the landowner to refrain from wantonly, maliciously or intentionally injuring him; in other words, the landowner is not liable unless he does some act which goes beyond mere negligence.

Poole v. City of Gadsden 541 So.2d 510 (Ala.1989)

-City and construction company which built boardwalk along banks of river in city park, were shielded from prosecution for the wrongful death of a swimmer who drowned after hitting his head on a submerged object while diving off the boardwalk.

George v. U.S., 735 F.Supp. 1524 (M.D.Ala.1990)

-In action for loss of consortium where alligator attacked swimmer in swimming area of national park, where park officials had actual knowledge of the alligator and the fact that he was large and had lost his natural fear of humans and was, therefore, dangerous, and where swimmer had no such knowledge, defendant's defense predicated on recreational use statute failed.

Ex parte City of Geneva, 707 So.2d 626 (Ala.1997), on remand 707 So.2d 631

-In order to achieve express purpose of recreational use statutes, those who permit public upon their lands for noncommercial recreational purposes must not be exposed to greater potential liability under recreational use statutory scheme than they would have faced at common law.