Plaintiffs appeal from the 13 July 2010 Order of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, which held that the public duty doctrine applied to bar Plaintiffs’ claims and that those claims were therefore dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs argue that the public duty doctrine does not apply and that the Full Commission erred in dismissing their case. We agree.
I. Factual & Procedural Background
On 31 August 2002, Mickela S. Nicholson was driving her vehicle on RP 1010, a state-maintained road, in Johnston County. Plaintiffs’ claim for damages alleges her car went off the side of the roadway due to an eroded section of pavement near the shoulder. While get*501ting back onto the roadway, Ms. Nicholson’s vehicle went out of her control, crossing the center line where she collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Carlos Ortega Valdivia. Ms. Nicholson and the three passengers in her vehicle, Marianne Dauscher, Michael Layaou, and Steven Carr, were all killed in the collision.
In July and August 2004, the estates of Ms. Nicholson, Mr. Layaou, and Ms. Dauscher (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed claims against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (“Defendant” or “DOT”) with the North Carolina Industrial Commission for damages under the Tort Claims Act. Plaintiffs alleged that the defective roadway was a proximate cause of the accident and that Defendant knew or should have known of the defect. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, based on the public duty doctrine. On 16 July 2009, Chief Deputy Commissioner Stephen T. Gheen denied Defendant’s motion. Defendant appealed to the Full Commission. On 13 July 2010, the Full Commission granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Commissioner Danny Lee McDonald wrote a concurring opinion expressing his view that the Full Commission was bound by precedent, even if the result was unjust. Plaintiffs appeal the Full Commission’s Order.
II. Jurisdiction & Standard of Review
This Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-293 (2009).
“The [Industrial] Commission’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc., 358 N.C. 488, 496, 597 S.E.2d 695, 701 (2004). Because we consider only the question of law whether the affirmative defense of the public duty doctrine applies, we review this conclusion of the Industrial Commission de novo.
III. Analysis
Plaintiffs argue the Full Commission erred in dismissing their case based on their application of the public duty doctrine. We agree.
The State Tort Claims Act (“STCA”) provides for claims against the State which arise
as a result of the negligence of any officer, employee, involuntary servant or agent of the State while acting within the scope of his office, employment, service, agency or authority, under circumstances where the State of North Carolina, if a private person, *502would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the laws of North Carolina.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-291(a) (2009). Such claims are heard and decided upon by the Industrial Commission. Id.
Our Courts have repeatedly found that the Department of Transportation may be liable for claims for negligent roadway maintenance brought under the STCA. See, e.g., Jordan v. Jones, 314 N.C. 106, 331 S.E.2d 662 (1985); Norman v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 161 N.C. App. 211, 588 S.E.2d 42 (2003); Smith v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 156 N.C. App. 92, 576 S.E.2d 345 (2003); Phillips v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 80 N.C. App. 135, 341 S.E.2d 339 (1986); Zimmer v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 87 N.C. App. 132, 360 S.E.2d 115 (1987).
In Zimmer, the plaintiff was driving on an alternate roadway selected by the DOT as a detour. 87 N.C. App. at 132, 360 S.E.2d at 115-16. His tractor-trailer rounded a sharp curve. Id. The rear tires of the trailer dropped off the pavement, and the truck overturned and crashed down an embankment, causing serious injury to the plaintiff. Id. at 133, 360 S.E.2d at 116. The plaintiff alleged the DOT was negligent in designating the detour, failing to correct hazardous conditions, and failing to provide warnings of the hazardous conditions. Id. This Court found the State had waived its immunity for such claims and that the Industrial Commission was the appropriate tribunal to hear the claim. Id. at 137, 360 S.E.2d at 118. However, we recognize that Zimmer and the other cases cited supra did not consider whether the public duty doctrine applies in a state tort claim action. See Stone v. N.C. Dep’t of Labor, 347 N.C. 473, 480, 495 S.E.2d 711, 715 (1998).1
The Restatement of Torts ('Third) explains the policy behind doctrines such as the public duty doctrine:
Courts employ no-duty rules to defer to discretionary decisions made by officials from other branches of government, especially decisions that allocate resources or make other policy judgments. ... For example, courts often hold that police have no duty of reasonable care in deciding how to allocate police protection throughout a city. This no-duty limitation requires analysis of whether the challenged action involves a discretionary determi*503nation of the sort insulated from review or instead is a ministerial action that does not require deference.
Restatement of Torts (Third): Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 7 (2010).
Our Supreme Court first recognized the common law rule known as the public duty doctrine in Braswell v. Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 410 S.E.2d 897 (1991). The public duty doctrine states, “[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 rationales behind the rule are that it “recognizes the limited resources of law enforcement” and that a public agency cannot be a guarantor of safety involving the actions of others over which it has no control. Thus, the Court refused “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 recognized two exceptions to the doctrine (1) where there is a special relationship between the injured party and the police and (2) where the police create a special duty by promising protection. Id. at 371, 410 S.E.2d at 902.
In Stone, our Supreme Court applied the public duty doctrine to claims against the North Carolina Department of Labor for failure to inspect a chicken processing plant in Hamlet. 347 N.C. 473, 495 S.E.2d 711. A fire started in the chicken processing plant, and more than one hundred workers were injured or killed. Id. at 477, 495 S.E.2d at 713. Following the fire, numerous previously undiscovered violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of North Carolina were revealed. Id. The plaintiffs brought a common law negligence action against the State for failing to inspect the plant prior to the fire. Id. The Court reasoned that the public duty doctrine was necessary “to prevent ‘an overwhelming burden of liability’ on governmental agencies with ‘limited resources.’ ” Id. at 481, 495 S.E.2d at 716 (quoting Braswell, 330 N.C. at 370-71, 410 S.E.2d at 901).
In Hunt v. N.C. Dep’t of Labor, 348 N.C. 192, 499 S.E.2d 747 (1998), our Supreme Court applied the public duty doctrine to a negligence action after a go-kart’s brakes failed, injuring a minor. Although the Department of Labor inspected the park, the plaintiff alleged the inspector negligently failed to inform the amusement park manager of the rules regarding seat belts and of the park’s violations of those rules. Id. The Court declined to apply a special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine, reasoning that to do so would *504make the defendant “a virtual guarantor of the safety of every go-kart subject to its inspection” and would expose it to “an overwhelming burden of Lability.” Id. at 199, 499 S.E.2d at 751.
In Myers v. McGrady, 360 N.C. 460, 628 S.E.2d 761 (2006), our Supreme Court applied the public duty doctrine to a claim brought by the estate of a passenger who was killed in a motor vehicle collision. Id. Thick smoke from a nearby forest fire, combined with fog, obscured the road. Id. A driver stopped a vehicle to change drivers, and the stopped vehicle was rear-ended, resulting in a four-vehicle collision. Id. The plaintiff alleged the Division of Forest Resources was negligent in managing the forest fire. Id. In applying the public duty doctrine, the Court said fire fighting decisions “concern the allocation of limited resources” and are “not generally the type of decisions for which the State is liable to private citizens in tort. Id. at 468, 628 S.E.2d at 767. The Court said it would not “judicially impose overwhelming liability... for failure to prevent personal injury resulting from forest fires.” Id.
The extension of the public duty doctrine in North Carolina, however, has not been unlimited and does not foreclose all tort claims against state agencies. “In all cases where the public duty doctrine has been held applicable, the breach of the alleged duty has involved the governmental entity’s negligent control of an external injurious force or of the effects of such a force.” Strickland v. Univ. of N.C. at Wilmington, _ N.C. App. _, _, 712 S.E.2d 888, 892 (2011). In decisions applying the public duty doctrine, our Supreme Court has stated it will not impose a burden of liability for failure to prevent the acts of third parties or failure to protect the general public from harm from an outside force. See Braswell, 330 N.C. at 370, 410 S.E.2d at 901 (refusing to “judicially impose an overwhelming burden of liability for failure to prevent every criminal act” (emphasis added)); Stone, 347 N.C. at 481, 495 S.E.2d at 716 (refusing to “judicially impose an overwhelming burden of liability on defendants for failure to prevent every employer’s negligence that results in injuries or deaths to employees” (emphasis added)); Myers, 360 N.C. at 468, 628 S.E.2d at 767 (choosing not to “judicially impose overwhelming liability on [state agencies] for failure to prevent personal injury resulting from forest fires” (emphasis added)).
The decision to maintain the roads in a safe condition is a duty of the DOT and is not discretionary. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-346 (2009) (“The general purpose of the Department of Transportation is *505to provide for the necessary planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of an integrated statewide transportation system for the economical and safe transportation of people and goods as provided for by law.”). In order to recover, Plaintiffs must show Defendant “knew, or by ordinary diligence, might have known of the defect, and the character of the defect was such that injury to travellers using its street... in a proper manner might reasonably be foreseen.” Smith v. Hickory, 252 N.C. 316, 318, 113 S.E.2d 557, 559 (1960).
In the present case, Plaintiffs do not contend Defendant failed to prevent harm or protect them from harm by a third party or outside force. Plaintiff alleges Defendant “knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the dangerously defective section of roadway” and that “ [t]he defective roadway features were the proximate cause of the collision.” This case does not involve a failure to inspect or to police, but a failure to repair a defective section of roadway. There is no “hazard[] created by others” or important discretionary decision which requires the government to be protected under the public duty doctrine. The requirement that the defendant knew or should have known of the defect limits liability and alleviates concerns of an “overwhelming burden of liability” in allowing claims. We hold the public duty doctrine inapplicable in these circumstances.
We note that in 2007, the General Assembly passed “AN ACT TO LIMIT THE USE OF THE PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE CLAIMS ACT IN WHICH THE INJURIES OF THE CLAIMANT ARE THE RESULT OF THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENT FAILURE OF CERTAIN PARTIES TO PROTECT CLAIMANTS FROM THE ACTION OF OTHERS.” N.C. Session Law 2008-170; see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-299.1A (2009). This Act does not apply to the present case, as it applies only to claims arising on or after 1 October 2008. As we hold the public duty doctrine does not apply in this case under current law, there is no need to consider whether this statute changed or merely clarified the common law.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we hold the public duty doctrine does not apply and the case is therefore
Reversed and remanded.
Judge STROUD concurs in the result only.
Judge HUNTER, Robert C. dissents in a separate opinion.