signs, markings or other similar devices.” (Footnote omitted.) N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 has been applied to immunize public entities from liability for failure to provide an ordinary traffic signal or sign in a variety of circumstances. For example, in Weiss, supra, 128 N.J. at 385, 608 A.2d 254, this Court held that the failure of public entities to provide a traffic signal at a railroad crossing in a timely manner was immunized by N.J.S.A 59:4-5. Similarly, in Kolitch, supra, 100 N.J. at 496, 497 A.2d 183, this Court found that the State was not liable for failing to warn motorists of the hazardous nature of a curve on a highway. The Appellate Division has also applied N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 on several occasions. See, e.g., Smith v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 247 N.J.Super. 62, 69, 588 A.2d 854 (1991) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 13, 611 A.2d 13
holding that the company administering a selfinsurance program for the department of transportation was an agent for the department and was therefore immune from suit holding municipality immune from liability under njsa 5945 for failure to mark intersection partially obstructed by trees and other vegetation holding that department of transportation did not have control of motorists drivers license because although the department of transportation may have had a duty to recall the motorists license this authority to revoke does not involve physical possession or actual control sufficient to bring the license within the ambit of the personal property exception to sovereign immunity holding that department of transportation was immune from liability under njsa 5945 for failing to replace missing sign warning motorists of low overpass holding that department of transportation did not have control over an uninsured motorists vehicle as intended by the personal property exception to sovereign immunity where it failed to physically obtain custody of motorists drivers license and allowed him to possess a license plate