As the Georgia Court of Appeals has explained, whether a claim alleges professional or ordinary negligence "depends on whether the . . . alleged negligence required the exercise of professional judgment and skill." Giddens v. Med. Ctr. of Central Ga., 353 Ga.App. 594, 604 (2020) (citation omitted). A claim that "calls into question the conduct of the professional in his area of expertise" is grounded in professional negligence whereas a claim based on "[a]dministrative, clerical, or routine acts demanding no special expertise fall[s] in the realm" of ordinary negligence.

Thus, the substance and timing of Six Flags’ arguments below provide no basis for reversing the trial court’s ruling. See Giddens v. Med. Center of Central Ga., 353 Ga. App. 594, 599 (1), 839 S.E.2d 31 (2020) (non-movant was not "blindsided" by argument of movant for summary judgment, where the argument was clearly set out in the movant’s renewed motion for summary judgment, which was filed before the hearing on the motion). 2. Smith argues that the trial court erred by (a) excluding without specification portions of her affidavit testimony, and (b) failing to consider the explanation for any contradictions between her affidavit testimony and her deposition testimony.