In Dean v. Department of Transportation, 561 Pa. 503, 751 A.2d 1130 (2000), a passenger was injured when the car in which he was riding fishtailed on a snow-covered roadway, causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle. The vehicle "left the graveled portion of the highway and traveled over a steep, declining embankment where it overturned." Dean, 561 Pa. at 505, 751 A.2d at 1131. The plaintiff asserted that DOT was negligent in failing to erect a guardrail shielding the embankment and in failing to design, construct, and maintain a safe highway. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the absence of a guardrail constituted a dangerous condition of Commonwealth real estate. In Dean, a passenger in a vehicle was injured when the vehicle slid on a snow-covered road. The vehicle left the paved portion of the highway and went over an embankment. The passenger claimed that DOT was negligent in failing to place a guardrail at the scene. DOT filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it was not liable because the absence of the guardrail was not an artificial condition or a defect of the land itself. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed that the failure to erect a guardrail did not constitute a dangerous condition of Commonwealth realty. In addressing the issue of whether the absence of a guardrail constituted a dangerous condition of the highway and whether a trial court could address that question in a summary judgment motion, our Supreme Court referred to its decision in Snyder v. Harmon, where it reiterated the notion that only alleged artificial conditions or defects of land may result in waiver under Section 8522(b)(4) of the Code. Further, the Supreme Court opined that Commonwealth agencies are only required to ensure that the condition of their "property is safe for the activities for which it is regularly used, intended to be used or reasonably foreseen to be used." Dean, 561 Pa. at 510, 751 A.2d at 1133-34 (referring to Snyder, 522 Pa. at 434 , 562 A.2d at 312). The Court held that PennDOT's failure to install a guardrail along a dangerous curve that would have mitigated or entirely prevented harm to a plaintiff, whose vehicle left the road, did not meet the real estate exception. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Commonwealth does not have a duty to prevent or even minimize injuries from dangers not caused by the Commonwealth, stating "the Commonwealth ... is not a guarantor of the safety of the highway." Dean, 561 Pa. at 511, 751 A.2d at 1134 n.8. If the Commonwealth's property is safe for its intended purpose, then the Commonwealth cannot be held liable for damages where its property causes harm. The Court further explained that: The real estate exception can be applied only to those cases where it is alleged that the artificial condition or defect of the land itself causes the injury, not merely when it facilitates the injury by the acts of others, whose acts are outside the statute's scope of liability. Dean, 561 Pa. at 509, 561 A.2d at 1133