Accordingly, the state is not obligated to mitigate the risk of injury from a dangerous condition inherent in the design of a highway. To hold otherwise would require the state to reduce the risk of injury below the general state of being, repair, or efficiency of the road as initially constructed, and the statute specifically excludes from the state's maintenance obligation any duty to upgrade, modernize, modify, or improve the design of a facility. § 24-10-108(1); Springer, 13 P.3d at 802 ("The public entity has no duty under 'maintenance' to upgrade the construction of the facility."). For similar reasons, designs that become inadequate over time-because of a change in use of the highway or because of changing safety standards-need not be corrected. Willer 811 (Colo.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). In short, the state's duty to maintain is no
holding that the phrase  to  be taken is of course a future tense of the verb take holding that the trial court erred by imposing a duty of good faith on seattlefirst in relation to a course of dealing when that course of dealing conflicted with the express terms of the contract holding that a person who cut and removed timber from a golf course was liable to the owners of the course as a matter of law under the gtccs regardless how the person subsequently disposed of the timber ie by using selling or discarding it holding that while safety improvements to public golf course were both feasible and highly desirable the citys failure to take such steps did not create a dangerous condition on the golf course for purposes of the cgia holding that meterman was not entitled to compensation for time spent taking a course to advance to a higher paying job classification because his employer did not require him to take the course and he would have remained a meterman with the same responsibilities and credits had he chosen not to take the course