context: We agree with the Langleys, however, that their complaint can be liberally construed to encompass all three of these asserted allegations of negligence. First, the most obvious cause of action stems from Shannon's alleged negligence for failure to diagnose the kitten as rabid at the first office visit. Second, the disputed facts indicate that Shannon may have been negligent because she recognized the danger that the kitten may have been exposed to the rabies virus and needed to be either euthanized or quarantined, but failed to communicate the same to the Langleys.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing that failing to warn the caretaker of the dangerous condition of a potentially rabid animal and give proper confinement instructions can constitute negligence
citation_a.sentence: See McNew v. Decatur Veterinary Hosp., 85 Ga. App. 54 (68 SE2d 221) (1951) (recognizing that failing to warn the caretaker of the dangerous condition of a potentially rabid animal and give proper confinement instructions can constitute negligence).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 246 Ga. App. 436, 438-439
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that knowing but failing to communicate a correct diagnosis may constitute a separate act of negligence
citation_b.sentence: Oliver v. Sutton, 246 Ga. App. 436, 438-439 (540 SE2d 645) (2000) (holding that knowing but failing to communicate a correct diagnosis may constitute a separate act of negligence). Third, the disputed facts indicate that Shannon may have negligently “failed to warn” the Langleys of the risk associated with caring for a potentially rabid animal.