City of South Lake Tahoe v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 971, considered whether the loss of a stop sign due to an accident occurring earlier in the day could constitute a dangerous condition of public property. The City defended a personal injury action by motorists injured later in the same day by a motorist running the missing stop sign on the grounds that since it had no duty under Government Code section 830.4 to provide a stop sign in the first place, it could not be liable if the stop sign were removed, by accident or otherwise. (62 Cal.App.4th at p. 978.) Because the mere absence of a stop sign did not create a dangerous condition (Gov. Code, 830.4), additional factors would need to be present to create a dangerous condition; thus, in the case of an obscured or improperly placed stop sign, governmental liability would attach. (62 Cal.App.4th at pp. 975-976.) The court distinguished cases in which liability was premised on the fact the sign itself created or became a dangerous condition. ( Id. at p. 977.) City of South Lake Tahoe concluded that to hold "otherwise would require us to accept the proposition that once the stop sign . . . was in place it could never be removed with impunity, and that motorists . . . could forever after rely on its presence." ( Id. at p. 978.) Relying on Chowdhury, the court found that the government cannot be charged with foreseeing that a motorist will disobey traffic laws and therefore liability cannot attach when another motorist breaks the law, causing injury. (62 Cal.App.4th at pp. 978-979.)