In Lawson v. Estate of McDonald, 524 S.W.2d 351, 356 (Tex. App.-Waco 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), two vehicles collided at an intersection where vandals had removed a stop sign. Several plaintiffs sued the State under an earlier version of subsection (a)(2), "asserting that the sign was in a 'dangerous condition' because it was easily removable. . . ." Lawson, 524 S.W.2d at 356. Evidence produced at trial showed the State knew that vandals had repeatedly stolen signs at the intersection and that vandals could easily remove the signs using only a crescent wrench. Lawson, 524 S.W.2d at 356. The Lawson court concluded that the term "condition" does not refer to whether thieves could easily remove a sign. Lawson, 524 S.W.2d at 356. Rather, the court explained, "condition" must refer to the State's "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." Lawson, 524 S.W.2d at 356. The court reasoned that this must be so, because the Act's former version also contained another provision - now subsection (a)(3) - which "expressly relieves the State from liability for claims growing out of the removal of signs, signals and devices by third parties without a reasonable time for replacement after actual notice to the State of the removal." Lawson, 524 S.W.2d at 356.