Had there been sufficient evidence to warrant instructions on contributory negligence and assuming that those given were improper, they were more favorable to plaintiff in error than he was entitled to and consequently do not constitute reversible error. Farmers State Bank v. Bush, 190 Okla. 405, 124 P.2d 385; Pact Gas Co. v. Baker, 203 Okla. 124, 218 P.2d 912; American Life Ass'n v. Rogers, Okla., 281 P.2d 183. The conclusions reached on the propositions discussed would make a discussion of the other points argued in the briefs merely cumulative.

"Where there is more than one theory as to the cause of gas being permitted to pass through a certain channel or opening in gas pipe connections, and the different theories are supported by circumstantial evidence, the jury may then adopt such theory as in their judgment is the more plausible, and which is reasonably supported by the evidence." The principle of law there announced is supported in the opinion of this court in Pact Gas Co. v. Baker, 203 Okla. 124, 218 P.2d 912. Lastly, defendant asserts that one of the vital issues in the case was whether defendant had notice of escaping gas in the house occupied by the Appels, and that the trial court did not submit that issue in its instructions.

An erroneous instruction standing alone without more does not constitute reversible error. Pact Gas Co. v. Baker et ux., 203 Okla. 124, 218 P.2d 912, and Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525. Lastly, defendant contends that plaintiff was awarded excessive damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.