With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 410 S.E.2d 897, 902 (1991), reh’g denied, 330 N.C. 854, 413 S.E.2d 550 (1992). In Braswell, the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the sheriff of Pitt County, alleging that he negligently failed to protect plaintiff’s mother from being murdered by her estranged husband, who was a deputy sheriff. Id. at 366, 410 S.E.2d at 899. The Court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant sheriff, and in so doing, adopted the public duty doctrine, which is a common law rule pro viding that “a municipality and its agents act for the benefit of the public, and therefore, there is no liability for the failure to furnish police protection to specific individuals.” Id. at 370, 410 S.E.2d at 901. The rationale for the rule is a recognition of “the limited resources of la 57 S.E.2d 902, 908-12 (<HOLDING>), disc. reviews denied, 341 N.C. 647, 462

A: 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
B: holding that the public duty doctrine applied to bar claim against city for negligence in housing inspections
C: holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable
D: holding that the special duty doctrine as an exception to the public duty doctrine was a concept distinct from immunity and did not serve to resurrect an otherwise immune claim
A.