of a public entity’s property.” Benton v. City of Rolla, 872 S.W.2d 882, 884-85 (Mo.App.1994). More specifically, under § 537.600.1(2) sovereign immunity is waived for injuries caused by the dangerous condition of a public entity’s property. Kanagawa v. State ex rel. Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo. banc 1985). However, provisions waiving sovereign immunity must be strictly construed. Id. at 835. A plaintiff seeking to state a claim under the aforesaid provision must show: “(1) a dangerous condition of the property; (2) that the plaintiffs injuries directly resulted from the dangerous condition; (3) that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm of the kind the plaintiff incurred; and (4) that a public employee negligently created the co 8, 19 (Mo.App.1986) (<HOLDING>); Twente v. Ellis Fischel State Cancer Hosp.,
holding construction company had actual notice of dangerous condition that its employees created holding that the negligent placement of a folding room partition at the foot of a ladder on which plaintiff was working created a physical deficiency which constituted a dangerous condition holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists holding that a sewer trench on sewer district property was not a physical defect arid therefore was not a dangerous condition holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect