State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 229 Ga. App. 522, 494 S.E.2d 244 (1997). Failure to prove any out-of-pocket economic damages. — In a dispute between a franchisor of daycare businesses and its franchisee, the trial court erred by denying the franchisor’s motion for directed verdict on the franchisee’s claims for negligent misrepresentation and negligence under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 because the franchisee failed to prove that the franchisee suffered any out-of-pocket economic damages as a result of the alleged misrepresentations, which was an essential element to such claims. Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Doles-Smith Enters., 337 Ga. App. 575, 789 S.E.2d 194 (2016). Pleading and Practice Sufficiency of complaint. — Petition alleging that the defendant company and named agents and servants thereof, falsely and fraudulently impersonated the plaintiff, invaded the plaintiff ’s right of privacy, the plaintiff ’s right to the exclusive use of the plaintiff ’s own name, represented the plaintiff as betraying confidence and giving secret and confidential prices to a competitor of those who gave the prices, caused the plaintiff ’s time and that of the plaintiff ’s employees to be consumed, subjected the plaintiff to embarrassment and chagrin, and caused the plaintiff to be held in contempt and ridicule by the plaintiff ’s business associates, all for the express purpose of advancing the interest of the company set out a cause of action. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vandergriff, 52 Ga. App. 662, 184 S.E. 452 (1936). When the injuries alleged appear to have resulted entirely from fright or shock, unaccompanied by physical contact, in order to set forth a cause of action it is necessary to show either that the injuries were the natural and proximate result of the fright or shock, that this result was or should have been foreseen with reasonable certainty by the defendant, and that the act was one of such gross carelessness, coupled with a knowledge of the probably physical results as 55 Pleading and Practice (Cont’d) amount to willful disregard of the consequences; or that the fright was brought about by the deliberate and malicious intention on the part of the defendant to injure the plaintiff. Towler v. Jackson, 111 Ga. App. 8, 140 S.E.2d 295 (1965). In a suit challenging a court’s electronic filing fee system, the trial court did not err when the court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff ’s claims because none of the statutes or rules cited by the plaintiff provided a private cause of action for damages arising from any violation of the respective statute or rule. Best Jewelry Mfg. Co. v. Reed Elsevier Inc., 334 Ga. App. 826, 780 S.E.2d 689 (2015), cert. denied, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 286 (Ga. 2016). Amendment of complaint. — Original petition, when measured by the provisions of the principles of law announced in former Code 1933, §§ 105-101, 105-103, and 105-106 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 51-1-1, 51-1-6, and 51-1-11), set out a plaintiff and a defendant and a specific cause of complaint sufficiently to be amendable, since if the petition was defective in any wise, it was only in that it omitted to allege sufficiently facts essential to raise the duty or obligation in the cause of action, and the trial court erred in holding that there was not enough in the original petition to amend by. Cannon v. Hood Constr. Co., 91 Ga. App. 20, 84 S.E.2d 604 (1954). Construction with federal law. — Because an express cause of action already existed as part of a remedial scheme set out by the U.S. Congress under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (VRA), 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the plaintiff may not recover O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 for any alleged violations of subject legal duties. Cruet v. Emory Univ., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (N.D. Ga. 2000). Because the breach of legal duty complained of by a title processor against the state vehicle title processing agency employees was under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the ADA provided a remedial scheme and thus the processor’s claim under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 was duplicative; 51-1-6 O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 allowed an individual to assert a tort claim for the violation of a legal duty when a cause of action did not otherwise exist. Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2004). Removal to federal court appropriate. — Removal to a federal court of an action brought under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 was appropriate when the plaintiff ’s claim ultimately hinged on the interpretation of federal law under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Jairath v. Dyer, 961 F. Supp. 277 (N.D. Ga. 1996). Pleading violation of statute as negligence per se. — Plaintiff may rely upon an act or omission as constituting negligence as a matter of fact under the circumstances, or upon the violation of a statute as amounting to negligence per se or as a matter of law; furthermore, the facts may be so pled as to show negligence of both classes in the same action. Criswell Baking Co. v. Milligan, 77 Ga. App. 861, 50 S.E.2d 136 (1948). O.C.G.A. § 33-24-44 governed the cancellation of insurance policies but did not govern the termination of insurance agents which may have had the ancillary effect of terminating an insurance policy, and the court could not reasonably conclude that the retroactive termination of the financial planner was the harm § 33-24-44 was intended to guard against. Therefore, the financial planner did not allege a viable negligence per se claim and the negligence claims against the insurance company were required to be dismissed. Rosen v. Protective Life Ins. Co., No. 1:09-cv-03620-WSD, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50392 (N.D. Ga. May 20, 2010). Notice requirement. — Denial of summary judgment based on any type of tortious interference with a contractual right to exercise an option to purchase was in error since both the original and the amended complaint revealed a lack of compliance with the notice requirement regarding any alleged tortious interference of contract. Bowling v. Gober, 206 Ga. App. 38, 424 S.E.2d 335 (1992). Failure to prove out-of-pocket economic damages. — Because franchisees failed to prove out-of-pocket economic 56 damages as a result of alleged misrepresentations in offering materials regarding the franchise’s projected cash flow, the franchisor’s motions for directed verdict and j.n.o.v. on claims for negligent misrepresentation and negligence under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 should have been granted. Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Doles-Smith Enters., 337 Ga. App. 575, 789 S.E.2d 194 (2016). Summary judgment erroneously denied. — In a personal injury action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., a trial court erred by denying summary judgment to a county director of public works because the consumer who tripped and fell was not disabled and, therefore, was not within the class of persons protected by the ADA. Newman v. Johnson, 319 Ga. App. 307, 733 S.E.2d 520 (2012). Summary judgment properly granted to hospital. — Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital on an anesthesiologist’s claim for breach of the hospital’s bylaws because the anesthesiologist unilaterally 51-1-6 made the decision not to return to work and, therefore, a summary suspension was never imposed and within a day or two of making that decision, the anesthesiologist cancelled malpractice coverage, which disqualified the anesthesiologist from having hospital privileges under the bylaws. Rowell v. Phoebe Putney Mem. Hosp., Inc., 338 Ga. App. 603, 791 S.E.2d 183 (2016). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies. — Medical group’s claim that a health maintenance organization was liable to the group in tort under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 based upon the group’s breach of a legal duty to comply with Georgia’s Any Willing Provider Statute, O.C.G.A. § 33-20-16, was procedurally barred by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies by first submitting the group’s dispute to the Georgia Insurance Commissioner pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-20-30. Northeast Ga. Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 297 Ga. App. 28, 676 S.E.2d 428 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1241, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 805 (Ga. 2009).