Sarkeys v. Haas, 1965 OK 83, ¶ 26, 402 P.2d 894, 899; see St. John's Hospital School of Nursing, Inc. v. Chapman, 1967 OK 126, ¶ 48, 434 P.2d 160, 174. For an instruction to be fatal to the judgment, the complaining party must show from the evidence that the jury's verdict is a result of the confusion. St. John's Hospital School of Nursing, 1967 OK 126 at ¶ 48, 434 P.2d at 174; Buck Creek Coal Min. Co. v. Johnson, 181 P.2d 1003, 1006 (Okla. 1947). ¶ 30 The evidence supported an award of punitive damages for conversion. It is undisputed and is not an issue in this case that the plaintiffs were given a farm under the terms of the trust.

This court has stated that it is not error to give an instruction that properly presents the law even if it is not applicable to the fact situation unless the losing party is prejudiced or the jury misled. Buck Creek Coal Mining Co. v. Johnson, 198 Okla. 664, 181 P.2d 1003; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Withers, Okla., 270 P.2d 341; Threadgill v. Anderson, Okla., 303 P.2d 297; Brown v. Reames, Okla., 364 P.2d 906; Dunbar v. American Airlines, Okla., 376 P.2d 226; Gaddy v. Mid-Continent Freight Lines Inc., Okla., 406 P.2d 479. The Brown case involved the question of giving an instruction on the use of ordinary care by a passenger injured on a bus when there was no evidence of failure to use ordinary care of contributory negligence.

4 is mere surplusage. In the case of Buck Creek Coal Mining Co. v. Johnson, 198 Okla. 664, 181 P.2d 1003, this court said in the first paragraph of the syllabus: "An instruction which states a correct proposition of law, but which has no application to the issue involved or the proof, will not warrant a reversal of the judgment, unless it is apparent that such instruction misled the jury."

22 O.S. 1941 § 1068[ 22-1068]. In Buck Creek Coal Mining Co. v. Johnson, 198 Okla. 664, 181 P.2d 1003, it is held: "An instruction which states a correct proposition of law, but which has no application to the issues involved, or the proof, will not warrant a reversal of the case, unless it is apparent that the erroneous instruction probably misled the jury."

Under the circumstances, the giving of this instruction was not reversible error. Buck Creek Coal Mining Co. et al. v. Johnson, 198 Okla. 664, 181 P.2d 1003. Judgment affirmed.

¶14 Whether the improper submission of a negligence per se jury instruction is reversible or harmless error depends on the evidence. Buck Creek Coal Mining Co., v. Johnson, 1947 OK 185, 181 P.2d 1003, involved the accidental death of plaintiff's decedent when he was struck by a coal car in a part of the mine called the slope where coal was conveyed from shaft to surface. A statute mandated that mines have a man-way, evidently a second means of ingress and egress and separate from the slope.

¶ 14 Whether the improper submission of a negligence per se jury instruction is reversible or harmless error depends on the evidence. Buck Creek Coal Mining Co., v. Johnson , 1947 OK 185, 181 P.2d 1003, involved the accidental death of plaintiff's decedent when he was struck by a coal car in a part of the mine called the slope where coal was conveyed from shaft to surface. A statute mandated that mines have a man-way, evidently a second means of ingress and egress and separate from the slope.