In Matthews v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 116, the plaintiff was injured in an intersection where traffic on the east-west street had a constant green light, and traffic on the intersecting north-south street had a constant red light. The signal had been out for several hours, and motorists stuck at the red light became impatient and darted across the intersection. One such motorist struck the plaintiff. ( Matthews v. State of California ex rel Dept. of Transportation, supra, 82 Cal. App. 3d at p. 119.) Relying on Government Code section 830, which defined a dangerous condition as one which "creates a substantial risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable it will be used, " the court rejected the government's argument it could not be liable for accidents occurring at the intersection. Focusing on foreseeability, the court pointed out that the negligence of a third party motorist in running the red light did not "negate the existence of a dangerous condition." ( Matthews v. State of California ex rel Dept. of Transportation, supra, 82 Cal. App. 3d at p. 121.) Rather, the plaintiff had to show that the property was dangerous as to the public generally; an intersection with stuck signals foreseeably would result in the behavior causing the accident at issue. Thus the malfunctioning signals created a dangerous condition as to motorists generally. ( Id. at pp. 121-122.)