Master and Servant — Negligence — Liability for Injuries to Servant. Paragraphs 1 to 6, inclusive, of the syllabus in Producers Refiners Corporation v. Castile, Adm'x, 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121, are hereby adopted and announced as the law of this case. 2. Trial — Instructions — Sufficiency — Refusal of Requests.

There was no exception taken to any of the instructions given by the trial court. In the case of Producers' Refiners' Corporation v. Castile, 89 Okla. 261. 214 P. 121, this court held: "It is well settled that, if the instructions given by the court, taken together and considered as a whole fairly present the law of the case, and there is no material conflict between the different paragraphs thereof, this will be sufficient. It is also well settled that, where the court instructs the jury clearly, fairly, and fully upon all phases of the case, it is not error to refuse to give any and all requested instructions.

Consequently, we will not consider the respondents' contention involving alleged failure of the trial judge to comply with the provisions of 12 O.S. 1961 § 447[ 12-447]. Parenthetically, we note that where a district court has allowed a deposition to be admitted in evidence, this court, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, will assume that, as required by 12 O.S. 1961 § 447[ 12-447], it was shown to the satisfaction of the trial court that, for some legal cause set forth in 12 O.S. 1961 § 433[ 12-433], the attendance of the witness could not be procured [Producers' Refiners' Corporation v. Castile (1923), 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121; Roger Givens, Inc. v. Mustex, Inc. (1966), Okla., 410 P.2d 42]. The record in the present case discloses that, in connection with overruling the respondents' objection to the admission of this deposition as an exhibit rather than requiring that the questions and answers be read into the record and allowing the respondents to object to particular questions and/or answers set forth in the deposition, the trial judge stated that, in order to have a proper understanding of all of the facts involved in the claim, it was going to be necessary for him to read the doctor's testimony as set out in his deposition, as well as the claimant's deposition (which was taken at the same time and was admitted into evidence without objection although she was present, and testified, at the hearing) and the proceedings involving the deceased employee's claim for compensation for disability. That for these reasons the trial court requested that the respondents file written objections to particular questi

"When a deposition, or any part thereof, is offered to be read in evidence, it must appear to the satisfaction of the court that for some legal cause the attendance of the witness cannot be procured." The above statute was construed by this Court in the case of Producers' Refiners' Corporation v. Castile, 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121, wherein the Court said: "It will be observed that section 5087 provides that it must appear to the satisfaction of the trial court that for some legal cause the attendance of the witness cannot be procured.

"`In a suit for damages for personal injuries, before a verdict of the jury will be set aside as excessive, it must appear that the verdict is so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous and such as manifestly shows the jury to have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption.'" Again in Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Hawkins, 194 Okla. 272, 149 P.2d 783, 789, this Court quoted from Producers' Refiners' Corporation v. Castile, 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121: "`* * * we have no right to place limitations upon the amount returned by the jury unless we are convinced that the amount of recovery bears no relation whatever to the evidence or that it was induced by bias or prejudice on the part of the jury.'"

It is the nondelegable duty of a master to use ordinary care and prudence in providing his servants with a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to work and reasonably safe and competent fellow servants with whom to work; failure in any one or more such duties will render the master liable for damages approximately resulting from such failure. Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 57 Okla. 567, 157 P. 356; Sulzberger Sons Co. of Oklahoma v. Strickland, 60 Okla. 158, 159 P. 833; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Odom, 172 Okla. 411, 45 P.2d 473; Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 60 Okla. 249, 159 P. 1132; Buxton v. Hicks, Adm'x, 191 Okla. 573, 131 P.2d 1015; Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. v. O'Donnell, 64 Okla. 229, 168 P. 49; Producers' Refiners' Corporation v. Castile, Adm'x, 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121. A master is not an insurer of his servants, neither is he required to superintend and direct the manner of the execution of minor details and where such has been negligently done by a servant to the injury of a fellow servant, the master is not liable. Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Berry, 87 Okla. 237, 210 P. 141; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Odom, supra.

In 25 C.J.S., § 123, p. 1292, it is said that the weight of authority is to the effect that evidence as to the earning capacity of decedent is not necessarily limited to a showing of what he was earning at the time of his death, and that evidence tending to show the probability of decedent's earning a greater income may be received. Similar evidence was held admissible in Producers Refiners Corp. v. Castile, 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121. We think the evidence was properly admitted.

The facts shown in this record are that deceased was 38 years of age at the time of his death; that he was strong, able-bodied and in good health; that he was an able lineman, was industrious and continuously employed; that he was earning $200 per month when killed in 1941, and had for a goodly number of years prior thereto earned approximately that much; that he had earned as much as $400 per month and expenses while working as foreman of a line crew in Mexico; that he had a life expectancy of 30.3 years; that plaintiff was a housewife and depended solely upon her husband for support, and that funeral expenses amount to $750. In Producers Refiners Corp. v. Castile. 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121, it was said: "In this jurisdiction all limitations on the amount of recovery in such cases are prohibited by article 23, sec. 7, Wms.' Const., which provides:

This, says plaintiff, is sufficient to fasten liability on defendant. In support are cited Producers' Refiners' Corp. v. Castile, 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121; Lusk v. Phelps, 71 Okla. 150, 175 P. 756. Those two cases hold, in effect, that in circumstances of this general character the employer who is aware of the disability is guilty of negligence toward a fellow servant who is injured as a result of employing or retaining an unfit employee.

And one of the elements of competency is reasonable skill or experience in the duties assigned to him and his fitness or qualifications for the performance thereof. Labatt's Master Servant (2d Ed.) sec. 1088; Producers Refiners Corporation v. Castile, 89 Okla. 261, 214 P. 121; 39 C. J. 529; 18 R. C. L. 722. Herein the evidence is undisputed that the breaking of the cable, and the consequent injury to Brewer, might have been avoided by the employment of a servant who was skilled or experienced in such matters. As said in S. H. Kress Co. v. Nash, 183 Okla. 544, 83 P.2d 536: