the facts alleged in the complaint took place. See P.L.1997, ch. 251, § 1 (effective Sept. 19, 1997) (adding "clergy members” to the list of those responsible for reporting child abuse). 5 . In limited circumstances, courts have recognized that an actor may have a duty to warn third parties of the dangerous propensities of another when the actor has a special relationship with the dangerous person and the person threatened is a specific, foreseeable, and identifiable victim of the dangerous person’s threats. See, e.g., Tarasoff v. Regents ofUniv. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334, 345 (1976); Thompson v. County of Alameda rcumstances to have a duty of care to protect others from harm by third parties are: innke h 925, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 968 P.2d 522, 527-29 (1998) (<HOLDING>); cf. J.E.J. v. Tri-County Big Brothers/Big
holding that school officials were immune from suit claiming they failed to protect student from an inschool stabbing holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student holding that university had duty to protect student from reasonably foreseeable fraternity hazing 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