Rather, it is their position that, under the proof offered, the award of $30,000 is excessive. In Rogers v. Worthan, 465 P.2d 431 (Okl. 1970), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld an award of $25,000 for loss of services resulting from the wrongful death of an eighteen-year-old boy. We agree that the evidence relating to pecuniary loss suffered by a parent through the loss of a son may be stronger in Rogers than in the present case, though there are similarities.

Title 85A O.S. Sup. 2014 § 47, see note 1, supra.Rogers v. Worthan, 1970 OK 22, ¶2, 465 P.2d 431 [Decedent's mother recovered for wrongful death of adult, unmarried, childless son.]; Finefrock v. Rice, 1967 OK 61, ¶0, 426 P.2d 675 [Mother of deceased, adult, unmarried, childless son recovered wrongful death under workers compensation laws.]; Robberson Steel Company v. State Industrial Court, 1960 OK 163, 354 P.2d 211 [Parents of single, childless adult son recovered for wrongful death under workers compensation laws.]

Title 85A O.S. Sup. 2014 §47, see note 1, supra. Rogers v. Worthan, 1970 OK 22, ¶2, 465 P.2d 431 [Decedent's mother recovered for wrongful death of adult, unmarried, childless son.]; Finefrock v. Rice, 1967 OK 61, ¶0, 426 P.2d 765 [Mother of deceased, adult, unmarried, childless son recovered wrongful death under workers compensation laws.]; Robberson Steel Company v. State Industrial Court, 1960 OK 163, 354 P.2d 11 [Parents of single, childless adult son recovered for wrongful death under workers compensation laws.]

In addition to the cases set out by appellee, the Supreme Court in the case of McKee v. Neilson, Okla., 444 P.2d 194, held that "the purpose of requiring objections to instructions before reading them to the jury is to inform court of any defect or irregularity in order that court may be informed and correct any error." Furthermore, the Court in the case of Rogers v. Worthan, Okla., 465 P.2d 431, held where plaintiff in error failed to reserve objections to instructions in manner required by statute, instructions would be reviewed only to determine if they were free from fundamental error. Appellant's contention that no cases have been decided by the Supreme Court regarding 12 O.S.Supp. 1969, will be answered by this court.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for such loss of probable support. See Rogers v. Worthan, 465 P.2d 431, 438-9 (Okla. 1970); Christensen v. Floriston Pulp Paper Co., 29 Nev. 552, 92 P. 210, 217 (1907). It appears that, historically, lump sum judgments have been awarded to multiple plaintiffs in wrongful death actions, to be apportioned later by agreement or by the court upon motion.

The damages must inure to the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and children, if any, or next of kin; to be distributed in the same manner as personal property of the deceased.Rogers v. Worthan , 1970 OK 22, 465 P.2d 431, 438 ("It is well settled that an action for damages for wrongful death is purely statutory, and that, in such an action, the damages are limited to the pecuniary benefits lost, through the death, by those specified in the statute ... In an action by a parent for the wrongful death of a child, the loss is determined by the sums of money and the acts and services of a pecuniary value which the child probably would have contributed to the parent during the lifetime of the latter except for the wrongful death.").Gaither By and Through Chalfin v. City of Tulsa , 1983 OK 61, 664 P.2d 1026, 1030.

We note that the instructions given were substantially as requested by plaintiffs, that no objections thereto were made during trial, and that no error with respect thereto was alleged on appeal. Under these circumstances an appellate court reviews instructions only to determine if they are free from fundamental error. McCorkle v. Great Atlantic Ins. Co., 637 P.2d 583 (Okla. 1981); Rogers v. Worthan, 465 P.2d 431 (Okla. 1970); Burke v. Scott, 361 P.2d 272 (Okla. 1961). The instructions were taken almost verbatim from the recommended "Oklahoma Jury Instructions-Civil", approved by this court in an order of January 1, 1983, some ten days before the trial commenced.

" [Emphasis added].Rogers v. Worthan, Okla., 465 P.2d 431, 437 [1970]; Sample v. Campbell, Okla., 305 P.2d 1033, 1035-1036 [1957]; Parkhill Trucking Co. v. Hopper, 208 Okla. 429, 256 P.2d 810, 812 [1953]; Stanolind Oil Gas Co. v. Jamison, 204 Okla. 93, 227 P.2d 404, 410 [1951]; Fike v. Peters, 175 Okla. 334, 52 P.2d 700, 704 [1935]. The enactment of § 1055 marked a significant departure from the purely pecuniary value approach for measuring a parent's legal loss. Since the passage of § 1055 the elements of recoverable damage include not only some of the previously recognized components of pecuniary injury — "loss of anticipated services and support" — but also several new items not previously allowed to be considered in an action for the death of a minor.

Railway company's final objection regarding damages is the failure of the trial court to give requested instructions charging the jury to reduce any damages awarded for future disability or loss of earnings to its present worth. Because no exception was made at trial to Instructions 28 and 29, we need not review this objection on appeal. Compliance with 12 O.S. 1971 § 578[ 12-578] is mandatory. See: Rogers v. Worthan, Okla., 465 P.2d 431 (1970); Huff v. Duncan, Okla.App., 530 P.2d 134 (1974); Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 361 P.2d 459 (1961). § 578 Exceptions to instructions — Copies to Parties — A party excepting to the giving of instructions, or the refusal thereof, shall not be required to file a formal bill of exceptions; but it shall be sufficient to make objection thereto by dictating into the record in open court, out of the hearing of the jury, after the reading of all instructions, the number of the particular instruction that was requested, refused and is excepted to, or the number of the particular instruction given by the court that is excepted to. Provided, further, that the court shall furnish copies of the instructions to the plaintiff and defendant prior to the time said instructions are given by the court.

We therefore hold that evidence of the prospect of future inflation or deflation and its effect upon the future purchasing power of the dollar may be competent and relevant in proving loss of future earnings in a personal injury action. Oklahoma Ry. Co. et al. v. Wilson, Okla., 227 P.2d 392 (1959) St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. King, Okla., 278 P.2d 845; Y Y Cab Co. v. Smith, Okla., 289 P.2d 964; WeGo Perforators v. Hilligoss, Okla., 397 P.2d 113 (1964); Rogers v. Worthan, Okla., 465 P.2d 431 (1970). 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 87; 12 A.L.R.2d 621 § 3.