In Fisher v. Morrison Homes, Inc. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 131, a young boy was killed by an automobile as he rode his bicycle out of a pedestrian walkway into traffic on the intersecting street. His parents brought a wrongful death action against, among others, the developer, Morrison Homes, which had built the pathway as part of a subdivision. (Id. at p. 134.) The parents alleged that failing to install barriers where the pathway intersected the street constituted negligence or a design defect. (Id. at pp. 134-135.) As some point before the accident, the developer had dedicated the pathway to the City of Pleasanton for public use. (Id. at p. 139.) At trial, the trial court granted a nonsuit for the developer, apparently on theory that the City had sole responsibility for the pathway after the dedication. (Id. at pp. 135, 136-138.) The Court of Appeal reversed. It noted that "public liability for injuries occurring on dedicated land may at times be unclear and the distribution of liability between the public and the private developer not susceptible of easy definition. Nor is the public entity's participation in the development, approval, or implementation of the building plans necessarily so pervasive as to exonerate the private developer for its own negligence. We therefore regard as untenable the position respondent urges upon us and decline to confer absolution on all landowners who dedicate their property to the public use from damages which may thereafter occur, regardless of the extent of their culpability. Nor have we been able to find any authority for such an extreme position." (Id. at p. 136.) The court noted that "the long-established rule in California, adopted with virtual unanimity in other jurisdictions as well , provides that a public contractor is liable for negligence and willful torts, but not for damages necessary or incidental to carrying out work done in accordance with plans and specifications and under the supervision and direction of a public body. There appears to be no reason why private developers who later dedicate improved real estate to a public entity should not enjoy the same protection. We can conceive of a situation where the degree of involvement by the public entity in the planning and execution of a project may be tantamount to requiring adherence to its specifications. In that case, the developer will not be liable. Elsewhere, the degree of participation will be less and responsibility for subsequent harm shifted accordingly." (Id. at p. 139.) Referring to the case before it, the court stated: "Thus, the nature of the relationship created between the City of Pleasanton and Morrison Homes through the process of design, construction, dedication and acceptance becomes a determinative issue of fact. All we know from the record is that Morrison Homes dedicated an allegedly defective pathway to the city and that the city accepted it for public use. This, we hold, is insufficient to resolve the question of degree of municipal responsibility for the defect-causing negligence." (Ibid.)