May it please the court. Appellants asked the Supreme Court of Alabama to preserve the civil claims of two sisters who were minors when they say they were sexually abused, arguing that Alabamas tolling statute for child victims, Ala. Code 7-2-8(b), extends a minors time to sue and should not be cut off by the municipal notice-of-claim requirement in Ala. Code 1-47-23. "An Alabama child should not lose their rights to justice before they are even old enough to walk into a courthouse," appellants' counsel said during oral argument (01:40).

In a compacted hour of argument, counsel for the cities urged the court to apply long-standing precedent, including Pardon v. City of Huntsville and City of Birmingham v. Weston, which courts have read to require compliance with the six-month municipal notice-of-claim rule even for minors. Counsel for the City of Irondale told the court that the specific notice statutes are a condition precedent tied to municipal immunity and that allowing a broad exception would upend the legislatures policy of prompt notice for municipalities (12:46). Counsel for the City of Birmingham said the court should not substitute judicial policy-making for legislative action and emphasized that notice statutes are procedural and enforceable as written (22:22).

Why this matters: The question presented asks the court to reconcile two statutes that, on their face, pull in different directions. Section 6-2-8(b), amended in 2019 by Act 2019-480, tolls certain claims of minors who are victims of enumerated criminal offenses until they reach majority and then provides an extended period to sue; the municipal notice-of-claim statute requires notice to a city within six months of accrual to maintain a suit against a municipality. If the court finds the municipal notice requirement bars such suits despite the tolling language, minors whose claims were undisclosed or prosecuted criminally could be precluded from recovering against cities. Conversely, a ruling that tolling supersedes the notice requirement would limit the way municipalities and their counsel investigate and respond to long-delayed claims.

What the advocates said: Appellants argued the legislature, by adding subsection (b) to 76-2-8 in 2019, expressed an intent to protect child victims listed under the statutory offenses (Title 15,  28-5 citation as discussed in argument) and that the court should harmonize statutes so the specific tolling provision applies to claims against municipalities. Appellants urged the court to overturn Pardon v. City of Huntsville if necessary to give effect to the later-enacted protections.

The cities countered that appellants waived the argument in the trial court in part and that this court has repeatedly treated municipal notice statutes as a separate, enforceable prerequisite to suit against a municipality. Counsel argued the six-month presentment requirement promotes prompt investigation and protects municipal resources, and that altering that rule would amount to judicial legislation.

Courtroom considerations: Justices pressed both sides on preservation of issues in the trial court, the meaning of "accrual" under the statutes, and hypothetical scenarios in which abuse was not disclosed until adulthood. Appellate counsel responded that pleadings and hearings had raised the tolling question and that the legislative change in 2019 should be applied to harmonize the statutes. Appellate counsel also acknowledged that one of the two plaintiffs has since reached majority and that notice to the cities occurred after that point in the record the appellees cited (27:15).

Outcome and next steps: The court took the case under advisement at the close of oral argument and adjourned. No decision was announced from the bench.

Case details: Consolidated docket numbers SC-2024-0734 and SC-2024-0788, appeals from Jefferson Circuit Court. The court heard argument from counsel identified in the record as Todd Wheelas and Meredith Carpenter for the appellants, and Michael Jackson (Irondale) and Joseph Abrams (Birmingham) for the appellees. Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Cook, McCool, Wise, and others participated in questioning.