With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it is independent of the risk of injury attributable to the road-whether caused by lack of maintenance or inadequate design-and therefore does not contribute to a determination of the overall risk of injury from the road. 7 . We also note that Mr. Andrew's conclusion that it was the design of Highway 6 and not construction or lack of maintenance that allowed the rock to reach the traveled portion of the highway is arguably a legal determination. Yet, there is no indication that this geologist was even aware of the applicable legal definitions of maintenance and design. It would therefore be inappropriate to find a waiver of immunity as a matter of law based on nothing but the conclusory opinion of the state's expert. Quintana v. City of Westminster, 8 P.3d 527, 530-31 (Colo.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Section 24-10-103(1) provides that "[a]

A: holding that an expert witnesss testimony on an ultimate issue was admissible recognizing that the expert did not specifically testify that the defendant was guilty or that as a matter of law the facts satisfied the applicable legal standard
B: holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
C: holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court
D: holding that the trial court erred by not making a finding as to whether officer endangered life or property pursuant to section 4241082c 11 crs 1999 and that therefore experts opinion that officer was reckless was not relevant to the issue to be decided to determine jurisdiction because allthough opinion testimony is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue of fact cre 704 an expert may not usurp the function of the court by expressing an opinion of the applicable law or legal standard
D.