Where the gas pipes and fittings on the property of the consumer belong to the consumer and there is no contractual duty resting on the gas company to inspect them, the consumer, by application for gas service, assumes the burden of inspecting the pipes and fittings on his property and of maintaining them in a manner reasonably suited to meet the required service, and the gas company has the right to assume that these duties have been performed by the applicant. Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelly, 105 Okla. 189, 232 P. 428, 430; Price v. MacThwaite Oil Gas Co., 177 Okla. 495, 61 P.2d 177, 179. See, also, Lewis v. Southern California Gas Co., 92 Cal.App. 670, 268 P. 930, 933. Under the facts in this case, the sole obligation of the Gas Corporation was to inspect the meter and the connections therewith.

" Earlier pronouncements of this rule are to be found in the cases of Atchison, T. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Phillips, 158 Okla. 141, 12 P.2d 908, St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. Milburn, 106 Okla. SO, 232 P. 930, and Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelley, 105 Okla. 189. 232 P. 428. As the final grounds upon which the reversal of the verdict and judgment of the trial court is asked, the defendants submit that this verdict is contrary to the instructions given by the trial court.

1. Case Followed. The syllabus of Okmulgee Gas Co. v. C. W. Kelly et al., 105 Okla. 189, 232 P. 428, is adopted as the syllabus in this case 2.

" Cases are then cited where gas companies have been held liable when given notice of a defect or leak in the gas system, in not immediately turning off the gas, etc., which cases are not pertinent here. In the case of Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelly, 105 Okl. 189 [ 232 P. 428], the supreme court of Oklahoma considers questions identical with those presented here as to liability, and sets forth the law in a carefully prepared opinion, and we can do no better than quote therefrom: "The gas company owes the duty to see that the pipe lines and fittings, when first laid in the ground, with reasonable care and skill, will not permit the escape of gas, and a system of inspection is required as will result in reasonable promptness in the discovery of leaks, which may occur from deterioration of the material, or from other causes within contemplation by the company. ( Pine Bluff Water Co. v. Schneider, 62 Ark. 109 [33 L.R.A. 366, 34 S.W. 547]; Louisville Gas Co. v. Guelat, 150 Ky. 583 [42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 703, 150 S.W. 656]; Barrickman v. Marion Oil Co., 45 W. Va. 634 [44 L.R.A. 92, 32 S.E. 327].)

However, without actual notice of a defect, a gas company has no duty to inspect a customer's lines and fittings. Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelly, 105 Okla. 189, 232 P. 428 (1924); Price v. MacThwaite Oil Gas Co., 177 Okla. 495, 61 P.2d 177 (1936). The gas company is not liable for injury resulting from explosions due to defects of pipeline, gas connections, and fittings on the property of the consumer unless it has actual notice of such defects.

9 and 10 Vict. Ch. 93 [1846]; St. Louis S.F.R. Co. v. Goode, 42 Okla. 784, 142 P. 1185, 1187 [1914] and Brookshire v. Burkhart, 141 Okla. 1, 283 P. 571, 574, 67 A.L.R. 1059 [1930].Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelly, 105 Okla. 189, 232 P. 428, 431 [1924].Wallace v. State Industrial Court, supra note 9; Meadow Gold Dairies v. Oliver, Okla., 535 P.2d 290, 293 [1975].

In Hankins, if the husband had prevailed in his action as executor, the benefits derived from that judgment would have been distributed to the next of kin as other property of the wife's estate. Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelly, 105 Okla. 189, 232 P. 428. The husband, as next of kin, would have been entitled to his distributive share of the estate.

Where liquified petroleum gas pipes and appliances on private property are owned or controlled by the consumer, the consumer is charged with a high degree of care in inspecting and maintaining such equipment, and, on his application for gas service, the distributor has the right to assume that the applicant has performed these duties. Hall v. Dexter Gas Co., 277 Ala. 360, 170 So.2d 796; Triplett v. Ala. Power Co., 213 Ala. 190, 104 So. 248; Ala. Power Co. v. Jones, 212 Ala. 206, 101 So. 898; City of Decatur v. Parham, 268 Ala. 585, 109 So.2d 668; Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelly, 105 Okl. 189, 232 P. 428; Geismar v. Gen. Gas Corp. (La.), 182 So.2d 769; Gable v. Tenn. LP Gas Co., 45 Tenn. App. 674, 325 S.W.2d 657. Where the gas pipes and appliances on private property are owned or controlled by the owner or occupant of the premises, the supplier of liquified petroleum gas is warranted in assuming that customer's pipes and appliances are sufficiently secure to permit the gas to be introduced into the system with safety. It is under no duty to shut off the gas supply into the premises until and unless it has knowledge of the existence of danger from escaping gas. Triplett v. Ala. Power Co., 213 Ala. 190, 104 So. 248; Ala. Power Co. v. Jones, 212 Ala. 206, 101 So. 898; City of Decatur v. Parham, 268 Ala. 585, 109 So.2d 668; Weinke v. Philgas Co., 224 Wis. 78, 269 N.W. 532; Wilson v. Home Gas Co., 267 Minn. 162, 125 N.W.2d 725; Graham v. North Carolina Butane Gas Co., 231 N.C. 680, 58 S.E.2d 757. Joe G. Burnett, Clanton, Fred Blanton, Birmingham, for appellee.

However, such pecuniary loss includes anything of monetary value to the claimant. Okmulgee Gas Company v. Kelly et al. (1924), 105 Okla. 189, 232 P. 428. The pecuniary loss may be of something which it was merely probable the claimant would have received had the decedent lived.

"In a wrongful death action by an administrator for the use and benefit of the several persons for whose benefit the action survives, the interest of each beneficiary in the recovery must be measured by his or her individual pecuniary loss and the jury may make apportionment accordingly in their verdict. If the jury fail so to do, then distribution made to those entitled thereto as provided by the general statute of decent and distribution in the same manner as personal property of the deceased is approved." In reaching our conclusion in the Tackett case, we considered and discussed Gulf, Colorado Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. McGinnis, 228 U.S. 173, 33 S.Ct. 426, 57 L.Ed. 785; Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelly, 105 Okla. 189, 232 P. 428; Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Young, 107 Okla. 151, 231 P. 261; and M.K. T. Ry. Co. v. Canada, 130 Okla. 171, 265 P. 1045, 59 A.L.R. 743, which are cited by the defendant, which sustain the general proposition that "to maintain an action for wrongful death, the existence of beneficiaries named in the statute to whom the action survives and the pecuniary loss to them must be alleged and proved". The Tackett case was cited with approval in Capitol Steel Iron Co. v. Fuller, 206 Okla. 638, 245 P.2d 1134, which involved a Workmen's Compensation case.