of a school board’s failure to prevent one student from shooting another, where the board lacked knowledge that the shooter had a gun or that the victim was in particular danger); Thames v. Bd. of Educ., 269 Ill.App.3d 210, 206 Ill.Dec. 440, 645 N.E.2d 445, 449-50 (1994) (same). On the other hand, a school district with unique knowledge that one of its teachers or students poses a particular threat to another student may acquire a duty to protect. See Ortega-Piron, 289 Ill.Dec. 642, 820 N.E.2d at 423-24 (recognizing a willful and wanton claim for the school board’s failure to prevent a known sexually aggressive student from assaulting a known mentally disabled student); Green v. Carlinville Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1, 381 Ill.App.3d 207, 320 Ill.Dec. 307, 887 N.E.2d 451, 456 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Doe v. Dimovski, 336 Ill.App.3d 292, 270
holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement holding that the district was not liable under respondeat superior for a teachers sexual assault of a student even though it occurred on school grounds and during school hours because the criminal misconduct was not within the scope of the teachers employment