cases that discuss the difference between maintenance and design under the CGIA: The CGIA waives immunity in an action to recover injuries caused by breach of the state's duty to maintain; it does not waive immunity in an action to recover for injuries solely attributable to design. As we noted earlier, "maintain" means to keep a road i .3d 1266, 1268 (Colo.App.2000) ("[The failure to keep a facility free of obstacles even if such obstacles were not part of the original design-may lead to liability on the part of a governmental entity."). In contrast, an injury results solely from the inadequate design of a road when the dangerous condition causing the injury is inherent in the design itself and is allowed to persist to the time of the injury. See, e.g., Swieckowski, 934 P.2d at 1386 (<HOLDING>). Determining whether a dangerous condition of
holding that rico claims were personal and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to sue on their own because their injuries were distinct from the injuries to creditors in general resulting from the diversion of corporate assets holding that the plaintiffs injuries were attributable solely to design and therefore finding that there had been no waiver of immunity under the cgia where it was undisputed that the roadway causing the plaintiffs injuries was in the same condition as when it was originally constructed holding hospital employees testimony regarding victims previous injuries was inadmissible under the common scheme or plan exception because there was no clear and convincing evidence defendant inflicted the injuries holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries holding that there was no waiver of immunity under the cgia where the plaintiffs injuries resulted from a sharp dip in the roadway that was part of the initial design and construction of the intersection