In Carson v. Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, a driver was killed in a car crash at an intersection owned by the defendant city. ( Id., at pp. 836-837.) There was evidence that the accident occurred because the driver's view was obscured by a nearby sign, owned by another defendant. ( Id., at pp. 837-838.) The trial court granted a nonsuit for the city. ( Id., at p. 838.) On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the city could be liable, even though the sign created the dangerous condition and the city had not erected the sign. "The City property at issue in this case is not the sign, but the intersection that was rendered dangerous by erection of the sign. . . . Under Government Code section 835, a public entity is liable only for a dangerous condition of its own property. However, 'its own property may be considered dangerous if a condition on the adjacent property exposes those using the public property to a substantial risk of injury.' " ( Carson v. Facilities Development Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 840-841.) "Here, a sign located on property adjacent to a City intersection allegedly obstructed the view and rendered the intersection dangerous. . . . Ownership of the adjacent property and the obstruction located thereon is irrelevant. The City is liable if the sign, 'a condition on adjacent property,' exposed those using the intersection to a 'substantial risk of injury.' " ( Id., at p. 841.)