c. 618, 783 N.E.2d 193, 200 (2003) (finding allegations that the school board knew of a teacher’s sexual misconduct with one female student sufficient to show a conscious disregard for the safety of other female students). Here, Doe-2 has not alleged a special relationship that would trigger a duty to protect on the part of the McLean County defendants. Doe-2 was an Urbana student not subject to these defendants’ control, and Doe-2 makes no allegation that the defendants had any contact with her before this lawsuit. Doe-2 does not cite, and we are not aware of, any Illinois case imposing a duty to protect under these circumstances, where both the student-victim and the place of injury are outside of the defendant school’s authority. Cf. Dimovski, 270 Ill.Dec. 618, 783 N.E.2d at 200 (<HOLDING>); Pesek v. Discepolo, 130 Ill.App.3d 785, 86
recognizing the school boards potential liability to several of its female students with whom the abusive teacher had daily contact holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students holding that a school acted impermissibly when a public school teacher was not rehired because allegedly he had relayed to a radio station the substance of a memorandum relating to teacher dress and appearance holding that content of bulletin boards was government speech in that boards were used to express school policy that access was limited to faculty and staff that postings were subject to the oversight of the school principals that the school district had made no affirmative effort to disclaim responsibility for the boards content and that the boards were the property and responsibility of the school and the district holding that the defendant school officials did not create the students danger or increase their risk of harm where female students were physically verbally and sexually molested by male students in a unisex bathroom and in a darkroom