I'm curious - did you come up with any actual evidence of what occurred?
The only hard evidence I've got is a 10-15 second video & photos of the aftermath immediately after exiting our cars. It shows the damage to both cars, the street, positions of each car, and distance from the intersection from which the defendant turned. There hasn't been any dispute about what occurred; the only dispute is who's at fault, and to what extent.
I visited the intersection recently to take more photos/video of the path the defendant traveled, showing how wide the street is and that his view was totally unobstructed (think I might have posted a pic on here)
Also I found the relevant Vehicle Code sections.
Regarding right-of-way, Division 11 of the California Vehicle Code (titled "Rules of the Road"), Chapter 4 sec. 21800 states:
(a)
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway.
(b) (1) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate right, except that
the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting continuing highway.
(2) For the purposes of this section,
"terminating highway" means a highway which intersects, but does not continue beyond the intersection, with another highway which does continue beyond the intersection.
The defendant was driving on a "terminating highway" (alley he was in terminates at a T-intersection with the street I was on), and the street I was on was a "continuing highway". Sooo the law seems crystal clear, I don't see any ambiguity there at all. I had the right-of-way (but still I stopped the second I saw him turning in my direction).
Personally I feel that only a doofus who wasn't paying attention would go careening around a corner at an intersection at high speed without ascertaining 100% that nothing was in his path.
I believe he did so because that particular street is VERY heavily used (the neighborhood is densely populated, it's nothing but huge apartment buildings housing hundreds of residents, all with cars who use the same alley daily), but there was a lull in traffic at that moment, no other cars on the "continuing highway" (except me), which is rare for that street. So I think he got complacent or just eager, maybe did a cursory glance before starting his turn.
The only explanation can be that he simply wasn't looking where he was going, or not paying sufficient attention. I (and dozens of other cars) made that same turn daily, and you HAVE to be extremely cautious.
I guess it will come down to how negligent the judge thinks he was given a) how heavily trafficked those streets are, b) the 100% unobstructed view of the "continuing highway" is, and c) the vehicle code.