of law under 12(b)(1). Instead, we conclude that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine the original state of being, repair, or efficiency of the road as initially constructed. This will enable the trial court to determine whether the dangerous condition of the road that caused Plaintiffs' injuries developed through lack of maintenance subsequent to the road's initial design and construction or whether the injury was attributable solely to the risk inherent in the design of the road. See Walton 968 P.2d at 641 ("When disputed facts exist regarding application of the CGIA's immunity bar, the trial court on its own motion may hold an evidentiary hearing, and should do so upon a public entity's request."); Lafitte v. State Highway Dep't, 885 P.2d 338, 341-42 (Colo.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Reynolds v. State Bd., 873 P.2d 1, 1
holding that a remand and possibly an evidentiary hearing was necessary for reconsideration of the plaintiffs claim for injuries allegedly caused by the states negligent failure to maintain a public highway because court of appeals could not tell whether parties presented and court considered all relevant evidence on the issue holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration holding that because defendant did not raise a newly discovered evidence claim or amend his postconviction motion after the evidentiary hearing the issue was not timely presented to the trial court and was not cognizable on appeal