On February 22, 1971, plaintiff-appellee, Harvey E. Asher, was injured while using a bench saw in his high school class. He brought suit against defendant-appellant, Scott County School District 1, alleging negligence in installing and maintaining the saw. The jury, in a trial presided over by Judge Robert R. Brown in the Jackson Circuit Court, awarded Mr. Asher $95,000. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the First District affirmed.
*49
*48
One of the functions of this Court is to resolve conflicts between decisions of the different Courts of Appeal. This
*49
is accomplished through our jurisdiction to grant transfer upon petition alleging this ground. Ind. R. Ap. P. 11(B) (2)c. Such a petition is before us in this case. The trial court permitted the injured plaintiff, an unemancipated youth of sixteen, to recover reasonable medical expenses in the claim brought in his own name. The Court of Appeals for the First District on appeal affirmed the trial court in an opinion holding that such recovery was proper. Because the Appellate Court, the antecedent of the present Court of Appeals, in
Allen
v.
Arthur,
(1966)
The issue which we have chosen to consider upon this petition is whether an unemancipated minor may recover for the medical expenses resulting from his injury.
Appellant objected at trial to the jury instruction which allowed the minor plaintiff to recover the reasonable value of the medical care he received as a result of his injuries. The objection was overruled and this ruling is a ground for this appeal. The record discloses that the contested expenses were incurred in February and June, 1971, when plaintiff was an unemancipated minor. He was sixteen, was not employed, and lived with his mother and stepfather. He was not self-supporting. He brought this action by next friend, who was not his mother, father or stepfather. Of these, only his mother testified at the trial, and she did not touch upon the subject of medical expense. Plaintiff’s evidence would warrant the conclusion that the reasonable value of hospital, ambulance and physician services was $2,400.00. In addition to these special damages, plaintiff sought to establish general damages in the $175,000.00 range. The jury awarded him $95,000.00. Since Ind. R. Tr.. P. 49 abolished the special verdict, the jury’s award
*50
included its determination of the reasonable medical costs. No evidence that plaintiff or anyone else had paid the bills is in the record. Plaintiff, though a minor, could certainly recover for any bills he has paid. In an analogous situation in
Columbus
v.
Strassner,
(1894)
With this record, appellant-defendant brings this appeal. The contracts of an unemancipated minor are voidable by him. Ind. Code § 29-1-18-41, being Burns § 8-141. For ex-ample in
Bowling
v.
Sperry,
(1962)
In interpreting the common law rule of contracts for necessaries, courts have held that a minor who is living at home or being supported by his parents is not liable on his contract for necessaries. See 70 A.
L.
R. 572 (infant’s liability for
*51
necessaries where he lives with his parents). The reasoning of such cases is that such a child could not be contracting for necessaries, since all necessaries are being provided for his support. On such a contract, the creditor cannot recover from either child or parent, unless he can show that the parent was at that time failing to provide the child with necessaries.
E.g., Wallace
v.
Ellis,
(1873)
The twin policies of protecting a child from disadvantageous contracts and of limiting the parent’s duty to the provision of strict necessaries at home are not at work in contracts or implied contracts for necessary and reasonable medical services. The necessity for such services is seldom disputed. There is no reason to insulate either child or parent from the doctor’s or hospital’s suit. The child was not talked into an improvident purchase, nor was the parent denied his right to choose the type of necessary. Since the child received the service and it was a necessary, he is liable.
The parent also is liable because of his common law and, in some instances, statutory duty to support and maintain his child.
E.g., State
v.
Allen Cir. Ct.,
(1960) 2Ind. 627,
Petition for transfer to this Court was accepted because of an apparent conflict in cases from the Court of Appeals. In
Central Indiana Rwy. Co.
v.
Clark,
(1916)
“Although the father is liable for necessaries furnished a minor, yet the obligation for such is also a debt of the minor, and it is not improper to allow him to recover for his medical expenses. Such recovery would cut off the right of the father to recover. City of Columbus v. Strassner, (1894)138 Ind. 301 ,34 N.E. 5 ,37 N.E. 719 ; Board, etc. v. Castetter, (1893)7 Ind. App. 309 ,33 N.E. 986 ,34 N.E. 687 .”63 Ind. App. at 53 .
We agree with the opinion in the Indiana Rwy. Co. case, supra, and hold here that both parent and child are liable upon suit by the doctor or the hospital, and consequently either may be compensated for the reasonable value of medical expenses.
However parent and child divide their claim for medical expenses, that division is of no consequence to the tortfeasor, as long as he is not subject to pay twice for the same expenses. If either parent or child brings suit against the tortfeasor and claims medical expenses which have already been claimed and awarded in an earlier suit, then the tortfeasor may plead in answer that judgment and his payment pursuant thereto.
Mullins
v.
Bollinger,
(1944)
In light of our agreement with the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, we order that such opinion be not vacated, but permitted to stand.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Givan, C.J., Arterburn and Hunter, JJ., concur; Prentice, J., not participating.
Note. — Reported at