This is an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandate against a district Judge. Parties to special proceedings are properly referred to as plaintiff and defendant, I.C. § 7-101, however, herein, to avoid confusing the parties here with those in the case below the litigants here are called petitioners and respondent. Petitioners here are defendants in a personal injury case in the district court. Plaintiff below, R. Scott Patterson, brought suit for damages resulting from personal injuries suffered during school hours. In the court below, petitioners moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of I.C. § 6-906 and § 6-908 in that he failed to file a notice of claim with the proper governmental agency within 120 days of the time his cause of action arose. The district Judge denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the said statutes do not apply to minors. Rather, the district Judge granted a motion by plaintiffs to strike all those defenses relating to the notice of claim requirement. This case presents questions regarding the constitutionality of the notice statute; whether the statutory notice period is tolled during the minority and/or incapacitation of a claimant and whether actual notice tolls the statutory notice of claim requirement. Patterson, (plaintiff below) was a student at Capital High School in Boise, Idaho and on November 24, 1971 was injured in a trampoline accident while participating in a physical education class at the school. He was a minor at that time but attained his majority on January 20, 1973. A claim for damages resulting from the accident was filed on May 7, 1973, almost a year and a half after the accident, but within 120 days of his attainment of majority. That claim was denied by the school district and suit instituted on November 23, 1973. Defendant below moved for summary judgment on the basis of failure to comply with the notice of claim statute which motion was denied. Plaintiff's motion to strike the defenses related to the statutory notice of claim was granted. Upon application, this court issued its alternative writ ordering the district Judge to show cause why his order granting plaintiff's motion to strike and denying defendant's motion for summary judgment should not be vacated and he be ordered to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment.