This action involved a motor vehicle collision where the defendant tried to merge onto a highway where the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at the top of the merge lane. In response to this, the defendant attempted to speed up and change lanes prior to the end of the merge lane, but was unable to and, despite applying brakes, collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff and her passenger husband passed away after the accident for reasons unrelated to the accident, leaving the defendant as the only living witness. The defendant argued that, as the only witness, with the version of events speaking to the plaintiff being stopped in the roadway, summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff was not able to contradict the defendant’s account. The court disagreed; distinguishing case law relied on by the defendant where the issue was the defendant’s duty to anticipate the negligence of another party. Since the defendant knew the plaintiff was stopped, a jury could conclude, based on the defendant’s own testimony, that she acted negligently in attempting to merge and colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle.