Objections to instructions must be made with sufficient particularity to afford the court identity of the error relied upon. ( Mathis v. Burlington Northern, Inc. (1978), 67 Ill. App.3d 1009, 1011, 385 N.E.2d 780, 782.) Objections must specifically point out wherein the instruction is an incorrect statement of the law or not applicable. ( Culp v. Olive (1964), 45 Ill. App.2d 396, 406, 195 N.E.2d 729, 734.) The failure to specifically set forth the error with sufficient clarity to identify the issue constitutes a waiver of objections to the instruction.

[7] The plaintiff next alleges that a "sudden emergency" instruction given by the Court, Defendant's No. 4, was erroneous. Although IPI § 12.02 (1961) recommended that the instruction not be given, the identical instruction was given in Culp v. Olive, 45 Ill. App.2d 396, 195 N.E.2d 729 (1964) and there held to be harmless error, the Court saying: "We are fully aware of the thinking of the committee which prepared IPI. The principle giving rise to their recommendation that such an instruction not be given is, `It states a simple and obvious fact about human behavior' . . . `when no juror would need to be reminded of the proposition.' If this reasoning is adopted, and if this matter is the proper subject of comment on final argument as suggested by the committee, then we fail to see how plaintiff was prejudiced by the giving of the instruction.