Summary Judgment in Favor of the City of Guntersville
By Paul A. Seckel, JD, MBA | Updated June 2025 | Guntersville Law, LLC
The Alabama Supreme Court recently issued an important opinion in Ex parte City of Guntersville, a case that clarified the scope of municipal immunity under Alabama’s recreational use statutes.
This case began in the Marshall County Circuit Court, where Margaret Hulgan filed a negligence lawsuit against the City of Guntersville seeking damages for injuries she claimed to have suffered at Civitan Park following the city’s Fourth of July fireworks show on July 4, 2012.
Background of the Case
According to Ms. Hulgan, she tripped over a metal crossbar in the park’s parking area as she was returning to her vehicle, resulting in a shoulder injury. She alleged that the City of Guntersville failed to properly maintain the area and should be held responsible for her injuries.
The City, represented by counsel, filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it was immune from liability under Alabama’s Recreational Use Statute — Ala. Code § 35-15-1 et seq.
Specifically, the City argued that:
It owed no duty of care to Ms. Hulgan under the statute, and
There was no evidence showing the City had actual knowledge that the crossbar posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury — a key requirement for overcoming statutory immunity under Ala. Code § 35-15-24.
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The Marshall County Circuit Court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that factual issues remained for a jury to decide. The City of Guntersville then petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking to overturn the trial court’s ruling and secure a judgment in its favor.
The Alabama Supreme Court’s Decision
The Alabama Supreme Court granted the City’s petition and directed the lower court to vacate its denial of summary judgment. The Court held that Ms. Hulgan failed to meet her evidentiary burden to demonstrate that the City had actual knowledge of any dangerous condition at Civitan Park.
Because no such evidence existed, the Court concluded that the City of Guntersville was entitled to immunity under Ala. Code § 35-15-24, which protects landowners — including municipalities — who open their property for public recreational use from most negligence claims.
The Court emphasized that:
“The plaintiff did not produce substantial evidence that the City had actual knowledge of a condition that involved an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury.”
Accordingly, the Alabama Supreme Court entered summary judgment in favor of the City of Guntersville, reaffirming the broad immunity municipalities enjoy under the recreational use statutes.
Legal Significance
This ruling reinforces the principle that cities and towns providing public spaces for recreational use are largely shielded from liability for injuries occurring on those properties unless plaintiffs can show actual knowledge of a dangerous condition.
For Alabama municipalities, this case serves as an important reminder of the strength of recreational-use immunity. For plaintiffs, it underscores the importance of gathering concrete, admissible evidence before bringing claims against public entities.
Key Takeaways
Case Name: Ex parte City of Guntersville, Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Court: Alabama Supreme Court
Decision: Summary Judgment granted in favor of the City of Guntersville
Legal Basis: Ala. Code § 35-15-24 — Recreational Use Statutes
Holding: Plaintiff failed to show that the City had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition; the City was immune from liability.
About Guntersville Law, LLC
At Guntersville Law, LLC, Attorney Paul A. Seckel, JD, MBA represents clients in a wide range of civil and criminal matters throughout Marshall County and North Alabama. Our firm closely monitors Alabama appellate decisions to ensure our clients benefit from the most current legal interpretations and protections.
📞 Call (256) 571-1529 to schedule your $100, 30-minute consultation today.