With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of joint liability between the city and county, the court concluded the county retained extensive control over maintenance of the parking strip and the remedying of dangerous conditions upon it. The court stated, “Where the public entity’s relationship to the dangerous property is not clear, aid may be sought by inquiring whether the particular defendant had control, in the sense of power to prevent, remedy or guard against the dangerous condition; whether his ownership is a naked title or whether it is coupled with control; and whether a private defendant, having a similar relationship to the property, would be responsible for its safe condition. ” (Low, supra, 7 Cal.App.3d at pp. 833-834, italics added; see also Holmes v. City of Oakland (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 378 [67 Cal.Rptr. 197] (<HOLDING>) and Warden v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13

A: holding a city liable under government code section 835 to a child injured by a train where the city had reserved extensive powers to regulate and inspect the railroad companys easement
B: holding that distribution of catalogs to city addresses constituted use within city subject to taxation under municipal code provision
C: holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning
D: holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city
A.