the missing stop sign in Bose ] was based on the fact that its total absence, when a driver on the through street was entitled to rely on its protective presence, created a dangerous condition of public property.” Dudum, supra, 334 P.2d at 971. How do we assess whether, under the New Jersey Act, a “trap” for motorists has been created? One court has suggested an analysis: In Bergen * * *, the malfunction in the signal was actively deceptive: a green light appeared at both junctions of the intersection. A jury could reasonably infer that the light was a cause of the accident, as each person approaching the intersection was, in effect, lulled into a false sense of security by the green light in his favor. [Lytle v. City of Newark, 166 N.J.Super. 191, 196 (399 A.2d 333] (Law Div.1979) (<HOLDING>).] The question is whether the absence of a
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 holding public entity immune where motorist killed in accident on a bridge slippery from rain recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations holding public entity immune when both drivers could plainly see that traffic light was not functioning holding that the government is immune from liability for its choice of traffic protection devices