public entity. On appeal from dismissal based on sovereign immunity, the plaintiff argued that under section 537.600.1(2), “it is not necessary that the dangerous condition of land created by a public entity’s employees be owned or occupied by the same public entity as that for which the negligent employees are employed_ [S]uch land may be occupied by any public entity.” Id. This Court disagreed and held that “the legislature was grammatically correct in its use of ‘a’ and ‘the’ and that the public entity mentioned in [section 537.600.1(2)] remains the same public entity throughout.” Id. at 89 (emphasis added). Thus, the public entity whose employees create a dangerous condition or fail to protect from a dangerous condition must be the same public entity referred 938 (Mo.App.S.D.1992) (<HOLDING>). Here, as we have already noted, the
holding that property of a public entity includes having exclusive control and possession of  property holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists holding that ijnjuries caused by the condition of a public entitys property  clearly refers to ownership of a property interest which allows a public entity to control the property holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver