In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, plaintiff was crossing a busy street in a crosswalk to reach a bus stop on the other side of the street. Motorists were stopped in both directions, but another driver's car rear-ended a stopped car, causing it to lurch forward, hit, and seriously injure plaintiff. (Bonanno, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 145.) Plaintiff sued the County, the driver of the car which rear-ended the car that hit her, the County, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA). All defendants settled before trial except CCCTA, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff finding that the bus stop was a dangerous condition of public property. The Court of Appeal affirmed that judgment, holding that the location of the bus stop created a dangerous condition because it required pedestrian bus patrons to cross, and cars to stop, at the crosswalk without traffic lights or pedestrian-activated signals. The California Supreme court granted review of CCCTA's petition on " 'whether the location of a bus stop may constitute a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 830 because bus patrons will be enticed to cross a dangerous crosswalk to reach the bus stop.' " (Id. at p. 146.) The Supreme Court assumed that the crosswalk was dangerous, and addressed whether the bus stop was dangerous because bus users had to cross the dangerous crosswalk to reach the stop. (Bonanno, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 147.) The property of a public entity may be considered dangerous if a condition on adjacent property exposes those using the public property to a substantial risk of injury. (Id. at p. 148.) "Public entities are subject to potential liability under sections 830 and 835 when their facilities are located in physical situations that unnecessarily increase the danger to those who, exercising due care themselves, use the facilities in a reasonably foreseeable manner." (Id. at p. 151, fn. 3.) The Supreme Court found that CCCTA was liable because the physical situation of the CCCTA's bus stop caused users of that stop to be at risk from the immediately adjacent property. (Id. at p. 151.) Unlike plaintiff Bonanno, the Tovar plaintiffs were not users of the MTA property or of MTA facilities. Neither is the degree of control the MTA had over the location of its facilities comparable to that of the CCCTA, which could control the location of its bus stop and could move or eliminate it so as not to expose users to hazards on adjacent property. (Id. at pp. 152, 154.) Bonanno relied on a second principle, "that a physical condition of the public property that increases the risk of injury from third party conduct may be a 'dangerous condition' under the statutes." (Id. at p. 154.) No feature of the MTA's property increased or intensified the danger to users of its property from third party conduct. (Id. at p. 155.)