is to shield minors from sexual contacts with adults in general, Wiley, 995 F.2d at 464-65, and with teachers in particular, see discussion infra part II.B.3. New Jersey’s public policy has the same effect. See Tots & Toddlers, 571 A.2d at 303-04; accord Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 134 N.J. 1, 629 A.2d 831, 879 (1993) (“We cited [Tots & Toddlers ] ... as illustrative of conduct that was so inherently injurious as to warrant the conclusion that intent to injure could be presumed.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2764, 129 L.Ed.2d 878 (1994); see also Atlantic Employers Ins. Co. v. Chartwell Manor Sch., 280 N.J.Super. 457, 655 A.2d 954 (App.Div.1995) (condemning sexual abuse of student by teacher); A C.R. v. Vara, 264 N.J.Super. 565, 625 A.2d 41 (Law Div.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because the contacts in this ease
holding that a teacher could not sue as a representative of her students under unruh 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 an abuse or molestation exclusion unambiguously covered claim of sexual touching even though terms abuse and molestation were not defined holding that a seventeenyearold student lacked the capacity to consent to engage in sexual conduct with a teacher and consequently her allegations of a seeminglyconsensual sexual relationship with the teacher were sufficient to state a  1983 claim based on a violation of substantive due process holding that sexual molestation of students by teacher is presumed to result in physical injury