Fred Holt saw the same in time to run away from the danger, but Doty was smothered under the same, which resulted in his death. Defendants cite and rely upon Earl, Adm'x, v. Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co., 187 Okla. 100, 101 P.2d 249; Kill v. Summitt Drilling Co., 153 Okla. 197., 5 P.2d 346; Phillips v. Tackett, 168 Okla. 143, 32 P.2d 29; McMillin v. Barton-Robison Convoy Co., 182 Okla. 553, 78 P.2d 789, together with a number of other cases, and state that the court erred in not sustaining the motions for the reason that there is no evidence in the record of any negligence on the part of the defendants. In Earl, Adm'x, v. Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co., supra, any one of the road maintenance men could have observed the condition of the roadway which caused the death of the deceased, including the deceased.
ng of sparks); Chicago Erie R.R. Co. v. Kreig, 53 N.E. 1033, 1036 (Ind.App. 1899) (local weather affecting settling of sparks); Manning v. Fortenberry Drilling Co., 107 So.2d 713, 717 (La. Ct. App. 1958) (local weather affecting driving); Fitzpatrick v. Kansas City Southern Ry., 146 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Mo. 1940) (atmosphere was "damp, foggy and smoky in the vicinity of the bridge and crossing, but elsewhere clear"); Holman v. Athens Empire Laundry Co., 100 S.E. 207, 209 (Ga. 1919) (local weather causing soot from next door to settle); Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co. v. State ex rel. Black, 69 A. 439, 444 (Md.Ct.App. 1908) (local weather affecting sound of train); Kamo Elec. Coop. v. Cushard, 416 S.W.2d 646, 657 (Mo.Ct.App. 1967) (conditions near power line affecting potential for arcing); Person v. City of Independence, 114 S.W.2d 175, 177 (Mo.Ct.App. 1938) (local weather allowing for extra stink); Palmer v. Reeves Co., 122 S.W. 1119, 1121 (Mo.Ct.App. 1909) (local weather affecting clover); Kill v. Summitt Drilling Co., 5 P.2d 346, 351 (Okla. 1931) (conditions near oil rig); Lieuallen v. Mosgrove, 61 P. 1022, 1024 (Ore. 1900) (local weather affecting fire igniting); Union Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. Memphis Hotel Co., 139 S.W. 715, 716 (Tenn. 1911) (local weather causing soot from next door to settle).
There is also evidence that the Hinderliter head was secondhand. Defendants cite and rely upon the following cases: City of Edmond v. Washam, 190 Okla. 140, 121 P.2d 300; Kill v. Summitt Drilling Co., 153 Okla. 197, 5 P.2d 346; Nelson v. Wolverine Petroleum Corporation, 189 Okla. 351, 117 P.2d 787; Leierer v. Thompson, 190 Okla. 233, 122 P.2d 387; Oklahoma Pipe Line Co. v. Fallin, 176 Okla. 474, 56 P.2d 372; Oklahoma Pipe Line Co. v. Perrymore, 190 Okla. 687, 126 P.2d 518; Williman v. City of Fairview, 157 Okla. 239, 11 P.2d 453, and Okmulgee Supply Co. v. McFarland, 190 Okla. 581, 125 P.2d 972. There are other cases cited in the brief, but these are the principal cases relied upon by the defendants. Since defendants rely upon Nelson v. Wolverine Petroleum Corp., supra, and italicize a part of the principle therein announced, we think it appropriate to distinguish between that case and the case at bar. It was assumed in that opinion that the death of decedent was occasioned by the collapse of a ladder in the bottom of a tank. It is stated therein that a common ladder belongs in that class of implements the character and use of which are understood by all ordinary men alike.
We think the rule governing this case, deducible from the authorities, may be fairly stated as follows: The rule imposing upon the master the nondelegable duty to furnish his servant a reasonably safe place to work, reasonably competent fellow servants, and reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to work, has no application to a skilled and experienced superior servant or vice principal intrusted by the employer with the complete control and supervision of the work and the method of doing it, and upon whom rests the responsibility of advising the employer if additional tools, appliances or helpers are necessary for the safe performance of the work, in the absence of advice by the vice principal that such are needed and a request that they be furnished. See Kill v. Summitt Drilling Co., 153 Okla. 197, 5 P.2d 346; American Coal Mining Co. v. Lewis, 77 Ind. App. 394, 133 N.E. 846; Duffy v. Hobbs, Wall Co., 166 Cal. 210, 135 P. 1093; Albert v. McKay Co., 174 Cal. 451, 163 P. 666; Logan v. Day, 110 Wn. 5, 187 P. 913; United States Cast Iron Pipe Foundry Co. v. Granger, 172 Ala. 546, 55 So. 244; Kellerman v. Kansas City Long Distance Tel. Co., 189 Mo. App. 506, 176 S.W. 1059; Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Dickinson, 155 Miss. 674, 125 So. 93; Darden v. Nashville, C. St. L. Ry. Co. (C.C.A. Sixth Cir.) 71 F.2d 799; City of Teague v. Radford (Tex. Com. App.) 63 S.W.2d 376. The philosophy underlying this rule is that "the master, having engaged a particular servant to discharge the duties owing by him to his other servants, ought not be required to engage still another servant to see that the particular servant discharges his duty, in order to avoid a liability should he be injured because of his failure to perform the specific duties for which he was engaged."
Or, if the well had not been "killed" as required by law, it was his duty to see that the law was complied with. In Kill v. Summit Drilling Co., 153 Okla. 197, 5 P.2d 346, the deceased was killed in an explosion caused by gas escaping from a well being ignited by the fire in a boiler used in connection with the drilling operations. His employer was charged with negligence in permitting the boiler to be located in close proximity to the well from which gas was permitted to escape.