the Freemans contend "the evidence is undisputed that the condition of the roadway in 1969 was better than it is today” because they presented a witness who testified as to the road’s condition in 1969, such testimony must be evaluated in light of any other evidence tending to indicate the road’s previous condition. See generally Premier Fin. Servs, v. Citibank (Ariz.), 185 Ariz. 80, 85, 912 P.2d 1309, 1314 (App.1995) (stating that the role of weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses is the role of the trial court). Given that Sorchych presented probative evidence that could be interpreted as controverting the testimony presented by the Freemans and creating a question of fact as to the roadway’s previous condition, and given that 81, 111 S.E. 846, 848 (1922) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Papa v. Flake, 18 Ariz.App. 496, 498, 503
recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement holding that the burden on the servient estate cannot be increased without the consent of the owners of the servient estate and that the owner of the dominant estate to which the appurtenant easement is attached has no power to convey or expand use of that easement in connection with a tract of land owned by another recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement holding that owners of a dominant estate had a duty to keep the easement in a proper state of repair to avoid damaging the servient estate through erosion holding that the duty to maintain an easement was upon those entitled to its use rather than upon the servient estate