excluded from the type of claims that § 24-10-106(1) authorizes to be asserted, the trial court properly dismissed them."). Such injuries are attributable solely to inadequate, or risky, re than a duty to hold the status quo. Some risk is inherent in every design. The state's maintenance obligation only requires it to ensure that this risk does not increase, due to degradation of the highway, beyond the general state of being, repair, or efficiency of the road as initially constructed. Thus, we hold that it is the development of a dangerous condition of a highway, subsequent to its initial design and construction, that creates in the state a duty to return the road to "the same general state of being, repair, or efficiency as initially constructed." Swieckowski, 934 P.2d at 1385 (<HOLDING>), The duty to maintain only requires the state
holding that the court has no duty to search for triable issues holding that the state has a duty to repair a roadway where the roadway has changed from its original condition and this change poses a danger holding in part that the right of removal is given only to a defendant who has not submitted himself to that jurisdiction not to an original plaintiff in a state court who by resorting to that jurisdiction has become liable under the state laws to a crossaction holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record