Appellant’s point regarding expert testimony is moot because we have disposed of the statutory claim. Because we are reversing the judgment for damages, we also reverse the attorney’s fees award. REVERSED AND REMANDED. LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur. TORPY, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion. 1 . Appellees’ counsel commendably conceded at oral argument that these assaults did not occur within the scope of the agency. 2 . Because the judge charged the jury that a violation of the statute is negligence, it is impossible to tell whether the verdict for Ap-pellees on the negligence count was premised on a violation of the statute or a violation of the common law duty. 3 . See Hinckley v. Palm Beach County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 801 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). TORPY, J., concurring specially. I do not
recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student recognizing that a caregiver and patient relationship may be confidential holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding special relationship existed between caregiver and developmentally disabled individual