note that some disagreement has arisen regarding whether or not the term "condition” also means the manner in which the light or device was originally installed, if that manner creates a problem. See Lawson v. Estate of McDonald, 524 S.W.2d 351, 356 (Tex.Civ.App. —Waco 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.) ("condition ... refers to the maintenance of a sign or signal in a condition sufficient to properly perform the function of traffic control for which it is relied upon by the traveling public” and not its susceptibility to vandalism); Creek v. Texas State Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 826 S.W.2d 797, 802 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (adopting the definition in Lawson ); but see City of Denton v. Mathes, 528 S.W.2d 625, 630 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). However, while we agree with the broader
holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring holding that an improper traffic control device may create a dangerous condition for which the governments immunity from liability is waived holding construction company had actual notice of dangerous condition that its employees created holding that condition included an intended if dangerous cycling of a traffic light holding that a jury issue existed with regard to an alleged dangerous condition concerning an open hatch on a thirdparty vessel