Ex parte City of Gulf Shores, [Ms. 1200366, Sept. 30, 2021] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2021). The Court (Bryan, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur; Mitchell, J., dissents) denies the City of Gulf Shores’s mandamus petition invoking the recreational-use statutes, § 35-15-1 et seq., Ala Code 1975, which the City argued required dismissal of personal injury claims asserted by Ronald Paulinelli (“Ronald”) on behalf of his minor daughter who was injured while walking on a wooden boardwalk owned by the City. Expressing no opinion on the merits of Ronald’s claims, the Court holds
The applicability of the cases relied on by Ronald [in opposing the summary judgment] is a key issue before us. However, nothing in the materials before us indicates that the City ever presented to the circuit court the arguments that it now presents to us regarding the applicability of those decisions. This Court will not grant relief to a petitioner or an appellant based on an argument presented for the first time to this Court. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley, 909 So. 2d 806, 821 (Ala. 2005) (stating that “[t]his Court cannot consider arguments advanced for the purpose of reversing the judgment of a trial court when those arguments were never presented to the trial court for consideration”); and Ex parte Staats-Sidwell, 16 So. 3d 789, 792 (Ala. 2008) (stating that, “on mandamus review, ‘we look only to the factors actually argued before the trial court’” in considering a petitioner’s arguments (quoting Ex parte Antonucci, 917 So. 2d 825, 830 (Ala. 2005), citing in turn Ex parte Ebbers, 871 So. 2d 776, 792 (Ala. 2003))).
Ms. **8-9.