In In Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 792, the plaintiff, a six-year-old first grade student, was struck by an automobile and injured as she walked home after school. The plaintiff was crossing the street in the middle of a block between one-quarter and one-half mile from the school grounds, on a site often used as a "short cut" by students. Claiming that the accident site was a dangerous condition due to the limited visibility of cars approaching the site, the habitual violation of the speed limit by cars, and the frequent mid-block crossing of the street by school children, the plaintiff sued, among others, Hemet Unified School District (HUSD). The trial court sustained HUSD's demurrer. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that HUSD controlled the property because it had the authority to affect safety conditions in order to increase the safety of pupils traveling to and from school, and that it did not remedy the dangerous condition because it failed to utilize crossing guards and failed to teach safety education. The plaintiff argued that HUSD's exercise of control sprang from the guidelines in the School Area Pedestrian Safety Manual promulgated by the California Department of Transportation pursuant to Vehicle Code section 21372 and Education Code section 39607, which permits school districts to construct and maintain pedestrian walks and footbridges when required for the safety of pupils. The court concluded that the guidelines, which had not been drafted by HUSD, only provided recommendations and were not internally binding on HUSD. Moreover, the court found that these sources designated by the plaintiff as giving authority to HUSD to provide student safety did not confer "control" as contemplated under section 835. Rather, HUSD had no authority to manage the property or erect barriers or traffic controls over the accident area, which was some distance from the school.