The above case was cited with approval in the case of Hembree Chevrolet v. Southard, Okla., 339 P.2d 771. See also Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Fontron Loan Trust Co., 89 Okla. 87, 214 P. 172; Oklahoma Portland Cement Co. v. Dow, 98 Okla. 44, 224 P. 168; Independent Cotton Oil Co. v. Beacham, 31 Okla. 384, 120 P. 969; Slick Oil Co. v. Coffey, 72 Okla. 32, 177 P. 915; Gypsy Oil Co. v. Green, 82 Okla. 147, 198 P. 851; City of Sapulpa v. Deason, 81 Okla. 51, 196 P. 544, and Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co. v. Crain, 185 Okla. 1, 89 P.2d 968. Proper consideration as to whether the verdict is excessive and the result of prejudice and passion necessitates a review of the facts concerning the nature and extent of the injuries.

So.2d 812, 86 So.2d 871, 87 So.2d 870; Cole v. Tullos, 228 Miss. 815, 90 So.2d 32; Davis v. Gillin (Ark.), 66 S.W.2d 1057; Davoren v. Kansas City (Mo.), 273 S.W. 401; Devine v. Chicago City RR. Co., 153 Ill. App. 382; Flynn v. Kurn, 183 Miss. 413, 184 So. 160; Ford v. Gray, 217 Miss. 882, 65 So.2d 230; Genatt v. Bentz, 133 A. 75; Gilliam v. Sykes, 216 Miss. 54, 61 So.2d 672; Hively v. Webster, 91 N.W. 1041; Hornbuckle v. McCarty (Mo.), 243 S.W. 327; Ignaszak v. McCroy Rfg. Co. (Mich.), 190 N.W. 756; Interurban Ry. Co. v. Traim (Ark.), 233 S.W. 816; Little Rock v. Barker, 33 Ark. 350, 34 Am. Rep. 44; Meridian City Lines v. Baker, 206 Miss. 58, 39 So.2d 541, 8 A.L.R. 854; Miss. Cent. RR. Co. v. Aultman, 173 Miss. 622, 160 So. 737; Morel v. Lee (Ark.), 33 S.W.2d 1110; Nehi Bottling Co. of Ellisville v. Jefferson, 226 Miss. 586, 84 So.2d 684; New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander, 122 Miss. 859, 85 So. 104; New Orleans N.E. RR. Co. v. Dixie Highway Express, Inc., 230 Miss. 92, 92 So.2d 455; Oklahoma Cement Co. v. Dow, 224 P. 168; Olszewska v. Windsor, Inc. (N.J.), 156 A. 16; Ortotono v. Morgans L. T.R. S.S. Co., 33 So. 914; Pounders v. Day, 151 Miss. 436, 118 So. 298; Rice v. Crescent City R.R. Co., 24 So. 791; Robinson v. Sims, 227 Miss. 375, 86 So.2d 318; Sakos v. Byers (N.J.), 168 A. 222; Sandmaker v. Y. M.V. RR. Co., 30 So. 285; State Use of Barnett v. Dalton, 60 Miss. 611, 10 So. 578; Stevenson v. Robinson (Miss.), 37 So.2d 568; Tax v. Oakland Cons. St. R. Co., 62 Am. St. 216; Vaughan v. Bollis, 221 Miss. 589, 73 So.2d 160; Vicksburg v. McLain, 67 Miss. 4, 6 So. 774; Ward v. Public Service Co. (N.J.), 152 A. 82; Sec. 1453, Code 1930. W.A. Temple, Gipson, Gipson Wiley, Meridian, for appellee, J.V. Duckworth.

Upon thorough review of the contentions here we are likewise convinced that the ends of justice require that we hold this verdict for $50,750 to be excessive, and that we should remand this cause to the trial court with directions to grant a new trial unless the plaintiff files a remittitur in the sum of $15,000. See, also, C., R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Fontron Loan Trust Co., Adm'r, 89 Okla. 87, 214 P. 172; Oklahoma Portland Cement Co. v. Dow, 98 Okla. 44, 224 P. 168; Independent Cotton Oil Co. v. Beacham. 31 Okla. 384, 120 P. 969; Slick Oil Co. v. Coffey, 72 Okla. 32, 177 P. 915; Gypsy Oil Co. v. Green, 82 Okla. 147, 198 P. 251, and City of Sapulpa v. Deason, 81 Okla. 51, 196 P. 544. In its discussion of the Brooks Case, supra, defendant asserts that it points to the correlative proposition that the consideration of the question of excessive damages involves careful examination of the court's instructions, and that the court in this case erred in instructing the jury to the effect that plaintiff might recover for loss of contributions which she might ". . . reasonably have anticipated receiving from her husband for such period of the time as she might reasonably have been expected to live. . . ."

The amount of damages awarded is too great and evinces passion, bias, and prejudice on the part of the jury. Moser v. Hand, 81 F.2d 522; Avara v. Collins, 157 So. 695, 171 Miss. 636; Ignaszak v. McCroy Ref. Co. (Mich.), 190 N.W. 756; Hornbuckle v. McCarty (Mo.), 243 S.W. 327; Davoren v. Kansas City (Mo.), 273 S.W. 401; Brew v. Davidson (N.J.), 128 A. 613; Ward v. Public Service Co. (N.J.), 152 A. 82; Remirez v. C.B. O. Ry., 219 N.W. 1; Genatt v. Bentz, 133 A. 75; Interurban Ry. Co. v. Traim, 233 S.W. 816; Davis v. Gillin (Ark.), 66 S.W.2d 1057; Allen v. Des Moines Ry. Co. (Iowa), 253 N.W. 143; Sakos v. Byers, 168 A. 222; Olszewska v. Windsor, Inc., 156 A. 16; Morel v. Lee, 22 S.W.2d 1110; Little Rock v. Barker, 33 Ark. 350, 34 Am. Rep. 44; Tax v. Oakland Cons. St. R. Co., 62 A.S.R. 216; Okla. Cement Co. v. Dow, 224 P. 168; Devine v. Chicago City R. Co., 153 Ill. App. 382; Vicksburg v. McLain, 6 So. 774; Rice v. Crescent City R. Co., 24 So. 791; Ortotono v. Morgans L. T.R. S.S. Co., 33 So. 914; Sandmaker v. Y. M.V.R. Co., 30 So. 285; Hively v. Webster, 91 N.W. 1041. Gilbert Cameron, E.T. Strange, and Edwin A. Dunn, all of Meridian, for appellees.

It appears that the verdict is excessive to the extent of $5,000. Oklahoma Portland Cement Co. v. Dow, 98 Okla. 44, 224 P. 168; Muskogee Elec. Traction Co. v. Richards, 97 Okla. 61, 222 P. 265. Some of the cases from other states, which considered the question of excessive damages for the wrongful death of minor children, are: Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 66 Fla. 589, 64 So. 274; C. O. R. Co. v. Ward, 145 Ky. 733, 141 S.W. 72; Swan v. Boston Store, 117 Ill. App. 349; L. N. R. Co. v. Taylor, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 1143, 104 S.W. 776; L. N.R.C. Co. v. Engleman, 146 Ky. 19, 141 S.W. 374; Ellis v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 234 Mo. 657, 138 S.W. 23; Corbett v. Ore. Short Line R. Co., 25 Utah, 449, 71 P. 1065.

The question here presented is not as to which was the better method, but was the defendant guilty of negligence in directing the four men to fire, by the fuse method, the 32 holes under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence herein. In the case of Oklahoma Portland Cement Co. v. Dow, 98 Okla. 44, 224 P. 168, this court quotes with approval from 11 R.C.L. 691, as follows: "In the employment of inherently dangerous agencies, such as powder or other explosives, it is the duty of the master to exercise a degree of care for the safety of the servant commensurate with the danger reasonably to be anticipated.