Robert Clay sued Cedric Perry on a negligence theory for injuries he sustained when the truck Perry was driving ran over Clay's foot and ankle. The jury returned a damage award in favor of Clay. On appeal Perry contends that the trial court erred in several of its charges to the jury and in allowing two exhibits to go out with the jury. We affirm.

1. Perry contends the court erred in charging the jury on the doctrine of sudden emergency. Specifically, he argues that the doctrine is not applicable because Clay was negligent in failing to exercise caution for his own safety. This ground for objection is without merit because the question of whether Clay was negligent was for the jury to determine. 1

Perry presents a second ground for this objection that differs from the ground given at trial, and it is therefore deemed waived. 2

3. Perry contends that the court erred in allowing two demonstrative exhibits which illustrated Clay's injuries to go out with the jury because they served as a "continuing witness." Pretermitting the waiver effect of Perry failing to include these exhibits in the appellate record, 4 we hold that the "continuing witness" objection "does not apply to items of evidence such as drawings or other documents which are 'demonstrative evidence that serve only to illustrate testimony given by the witnesses.' " 5 Clay's physician stated that the illustrations were an accurate depiction of both Clay's injuries and the surgery he performed on Clay's ankle. 6 Therefore, Perry's objection was without merit.

4. Clay's motion for imposition of a frivolous appeal penalty against Perry is denied.