enforcement” and a refusal “to judicially impose an overwhelming burden of liability for failure to prevent every criminal act.” Id. at 370-71, 410 S.E.2d at 901. The Court also adopted two recognized exceptions to the public duty doctrine, generally called the “special duty” exception and the “special relationship” exception. Id. at 371, 410 S.E.2d at 902. Neither exception is applicable to the facts of this case and we do not discuss them. Although the holding in Braswell was explicitly limited to the facts of that case, application of the doctrine was subsequently expanded to bar liability of municipalities for negligent performance of public duties beyond those related to law enforcement departments. See Simmons v. City of Hickory, 126 N.C. App. 821, 826, 487 S.E.2d 583, 587 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Messer, 119 N.C. App. 44, 54-57, 60,
holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty holding that the public duty doctrine applied to bar claim against city for negligence in housing inspections holding the doctrine applied in a case of mistake holding that the public duty doctrine applied to the countys animal control departments holding that the public duty doctrine applied to claims against the town and fire chief for negligence in responding to a fire call although plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show the special duty exception applied