Reversing.
Willie Noble sued the Louisville Nashville Railroad Company for $30,000 for personal injuries. Nine of the jury gave Noble a verdict for $1,000, and, from the judgment entered thereon, the Louisville Nashville Railroad Company appeals.
On August 9, 1930, plaintiff's father, Hiram Noble, qualified as plaintiff's guardian, and as such settled with the Louisville Nashville Railroad Company for this injury, in which settlement there was paid to the guardian $155, which he in turn paid to Dr. Bach for plaintiff's care and treatment. Plaintiff arrived at maturity November 18, 1933, and on June 7, 1934, he filed this action.
In its three paragraphs of answer the Louisville Nashville Railroad Company traversed the petition, pleaded contributory negligence and the settlement with *Page 202 plaintiff's guardian. By reply plaintiff denied contributory negligence, asserted the appointment of his father as his guardian was invalid because plaintiff was then more than 14 years of age and had not himself selected his father as his guardian, and that this settlement and release were obtained by fraud, etc., to which the Louisville Nashville Railroad Company filed rejoinder.
There are divers questions presented that were raised by demurrers, motions, exceptions to rulings on the evidence, exceptions to the giving and refusing of instructions, etc. Without further enumeration or discussion of these questions, we expressly reserve all of them, and pass now to what we regard as the outstanding error.
This case cannot be distinguished from the case of Louisville N. R. R. Co. v. Reynolds' Adm'r, 240 Ky. 662,42 S.W.2d 911. In reversing that judgment, we said the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict and such should have been awarded in this case for the same reason it was directed in that case. We there cited numerous authorities, to which we now add: Louisville N. R. R. Co. v. Whittle's Adm'rs, 216 Ky. 314, 287 S.W. 894; Jones v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 104 S.W. 258, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 825, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1066; Landers v. Cincinnati, N. O. T. P. Ry. Co., 156 Ky. 301, 160 S.W. 1050.
The appellee relies upon Trent v. Norfolk W. Ry. Co.,167 Ky. 319, 180 S.W. 792, but an inspection of that opinion shows that the reason for that holding is that the injured child was but 8 years of age, and it was that child's lack of age and discretion upon which that opinion is rested. The indiscretion that excused the 8 year old Trent child will not excuse the plaintiff, who lacked less than 4 months of being 18 when he sustained his injury. See distinction pointed out in Louisville N. R. Co. v. Hutton, 220 Ky. 277, 295 S.W. 175, 53 A.L.R. 1328.
Judgment reversed. *Page 203