entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2009). The standard of review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 337, 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2009). I. Defendant City first contends it is entitled to summary judgment because the alleged negligent acts relied upon by plaintiff in her claim against it involved defendant City’s failure “to protect [Joshua] from the wrongful, criminal acts of others” and such claims are barred by the public duty doctrine. The North Carolina Supreme Court first adopted the public duty doctrine in North Carolina in Braswell v. Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 37 508 (1995); Prevette v. Forsyth Cty., 110 N.C. App. 754, 757-58, 431 S.E.2d 216, 218 (<HOLDING>) disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 622, 435 S.E.2d
holding that the public duty doctrine applied to bar claim against city for negligence in housing inspections 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 holding that the public duty doctrine applied to the countys animal control departments holding the doctrine applied in a case of mistake holding authority to control limits duty to control