With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argues that Dean and Lockwood are distinguishable because those cases involved the failure to install guardrails and did not involve wedge curbs. Nevertheless, the injuries suffered by Smith, like the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs in Dean and Lockwood, result from the motor vehicle traveling off the portion of the roadway intended for travel. Smith does not allege that his injuries were caused by the condition of any portion of Crucible Street that is intended for travel. The wedge curb cannot be said to be any more of a dangerous condition resulting in a reasonably foreseeable injury to Smith than the failure to install guardrails in Dean and Lockwood were dangerous conditions resulting in reasonably foreseeable injury. See also Snyder v. Harmon, 522 Pa. 424, 562 A.2d 307 (1989) (<HOLDING>). There is no merit in Smith’s contention that

A: holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983
B: holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983
C: holding that permitting a strip mine within the department of transportations rightofway without warning the public providing lighting or erecting a guardrail did not create a dangerous condition within the meaning of the real property exception to sovereign immunity
D: holding that department of transportation did not have control of motorists drivers license because although the department of transportation may have had a duty to recall the motorists license this authority to revoke does not involve physical possession or actual control sufficient to bring the license within the ambit of the personal property exception to sovereign immunity
C.