Hull v. Newman Memorial Hospital, Inc., Okla., 379 P.2d 701; Harrison v. Commander Mills, Inc., Okla., 298 P.2d 749. On the other hand, the law is equally well-settled that if the petition states any fact or facts which, with the reasonable and natural inferences to be drawn, would entitle the plaintiff to any relief the demurrer should be overruled. New v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519. Counsel for the plaintiff cite three cases, each holding that the owner of property in guarding against injuries to children invited on the premises, must exercise more vigilance and caution than would be necessary in the case of adults.
65 C.J.S. p. 400, § 12b; 38 Am.Jur. p. 685, § 40. In New v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519, a case involving an injury to a fifteen year old employee of the defendant, we said: "The court has always made a difference in the application of rules guarding against dangers with grownup persons and children, and this doctrine is so well established that it needs no citation of authority to support it.
"All scaffolds . . . erected or constructed by any person, firm or corporation in the state, for use in the . . . repairing, alteration . . . of any house, building . . . or other structure, shall be erected and constructed in a safe, suitable and proper manner, and shall be so erected and constructed, placed and operated as to give proper and adequate protection to life and limb of any person or persons employed or engaged thereon, or passing under or by the same, and in such manner as to prevent the falling of any material that may be used or deposited thereon. . . ." We said in New v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519: "Section 7269, C.O.S. 1921, provides: . . .
( Town of Depew v. Kilgore, supra; Folsom-Morris Coal Min. Co. v. De Vork, supra; Clark v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours Powder Co., supra; Mathis v. Granger Brick Tile Co., supra; Boggess v. King County, 150 Wn. 578, 274 Pac. 188; Powers v. Harlow, 53 Mich. 507, 19 N.W. 257, 51 Am.Rep. 154; Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. Shields, 47 Ohio St. 387, 24 N.E. 658, 21 Am. St. 840, 8 L.R.A. 464; Peterson v. Martin, 138 Minn. 195, 164 N.W. 813; Birge v. Gardner, 19 Conn. 507, 50 Am. Dec. 261; Mattson v. Minnesota North Wis. R. R. Co., supra; Nelson v. McLellan, 31 Wn. 208, 71 P. 747, 96 Am. St. 902, 60 L.R.A. 793; Harriman v. Pittsburgh C. St. L. R. Co., 45 Ohio St. 11, 12 N.E. 451, 4 Am. St. 507.) Although there might be no liability with reference to an adult or a child of years of discretion, under like circumstances. ( Union Pac. R. Co. v. McDonald, 152 U.S. 262, 14 Sup. Ct. 619, 38 L. ed. 434; New v. Stout, 98 Okl. 177, 224 P. 519; and cases immediately supra.) A child without discretion, although a trespasser, occupies a legal attitude similar to that of an adult who is not a trespasser.
"In the trial of a law case, where there is any competent evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the allegations of the pleading of the party offering the evidence, and which would reasonably tend to support a verdict and judgment in favor of such party, a demurrer to such evidence should be overruled." Gould v. Gray, 104 Okla. 225, 230 P. 926; Wallace v. Merfeld et al., 95 Okla. 296, 219 P. 702; Wm. Cameron Co. v. Henderson, 40 Okla. 648, 140 P. 404; New et al. v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519. Should any doubt whatever exist as to the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence to establish that nothing had been paid on the judgment except the $6,000, that doubt was removed by the evidence afterwards produced by defendant.
There is no evidence in the record to indicate passion and prejudice toward defendant on the part of the jury, and unless we are able to say by the amount of the verdict alone that such existed, we must overrule this assignment of error. In our judgment this verdict is amply supported by the rule laid down by this court in New v. Saunders, 86 Okla. 97, 206 P. 600, M., K. T. Ry. Co. v. Smith, supra, New v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519, and Shaffer Co. v. Thomas, 120 Okla. 253, 252 P. 41 (and authorities there cited). In the instant case the evidence shows the plaintiff to be a young woman 17 years of age at the time of her injury; that she was taken to a hospital on the 3rd day of December and remained there until the 17th day of February following; that she suffered great pain and at the trial was unable to bear any weight on her right foot and that she could lie in bed only in one position; that one leg was several inches shorter than the other; that her injuries were permanent; that because of the bones being broken and splintered the pelvic cavity was reduced, which, physicians indicated, would interfere with if not make childbirth impossible, and, no doubt, the jury took all of these things into consideration in fixing the amount of her recovery.
"It is only when the evidence, with all the inferences that the jury can reasonably draw therefrom, is insufficient to support a verdict, that the court is authorized to direct a verdict for the defendant." Keaton v. Taylor, 114 Okla. 167, 245 P. 56. See, also, Mills v. Williams, 87 Okla. 189, 209 P. 771; New v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519. At the close of plaintiff's evidence and at the time the demurrer thereto was interposed, the evidence did not establish defendant's defense, and was sufficient to withstand demurrer; the court committed no error in overruling defendant's demurrer.
"The courts have always made a difference in the application of rules guarding against dangers with mature persons and children; what would be ordinary care in the one case might be negligence in the other." New v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519. In the case of Town of Depew v. Kilgore et al., 117 Okla. 263, 246 P. 606, it is said in the second paragraph of the syllabus:
Polland v. Oklahoma City R. Co., 36 Okla. 96, 128 P. 300. It is well settled that there is a difference in the degree of care that is required to be exercised in respect to safety from a dangerous instrumentality where a child is involved and in the case of a mature person. New v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519. In the handling of a dangerous instrumentality, such as dynamite caps, a higher degree of care is required than in the handling of a less dangerous species of property, and persons having in their custody such instruments of danger are required to keep them with the utmost care. Rawley v. Commonwealth Cotton Oil Co., 88 Okla. 29, 211 P. 74. The duties imposed upon persons handling such dangerous instrumentalities, as to the safety of children or immature persons, are ably discussed and defined in the case of Matson v. Minnesota North Wisconsin R. Co., 95 Minn. 477, 104 N.W. 443, quoted with approval in the case of Folsom-Morris Coal Mining Co. v. De Vork, 61 Okla. 75, 160 P. 64:
Therefore the court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the evidence. Schaff v. Hudgins, 98 Okla. 219, 225 P. 913; New v. Stout, 98 Okla. 177, 224 P. 519. Defendant also urges that the court erred in not sustaining his motion for a directed verdict.