In a civil wrongful death trial, Misryoum reports attorneys claim Rebecca Grossman and her ex-boyfriend were racing and intoxicated when they struck two boys in 2020.
Rebecca Grossman’s civil wrongful death case is reopening the same central question that has already shaped years of criminal litigation: who was driving the fatal moment, and why.
On Friday. an attorney for the parents of Mark and Jacob Iskander told jurors that the fatal crash in Westlake Village in September 2020 was the product of speed. intoxication. and a dangerous driving dynamic between Grossman and her ex-boyfriend. former Dodgers pitcher Scott Erickson.. The families are pursuing damages after Grossman was convicted in the boys’ deaths and is serving a 15-years-to-life sentence.
During opening statements of the civil trial. Misryoum reports that Brian Panish—representing Nancy and Karim Iskander—argued that both Grossman and Erickson were in a racing mindset. and that multiple witnesses described a vehicle in the first lane that. in his telling. prevented the children from escaping once they entered the crosswalk area.. Panish played snippets of video depositions from people who claimed to have seen the crash as it unfolded.
Panish also described intoxication as a key contributor.. He alleged Grossman was impaired by a combination of benzodiazepines and alcohol. and that Erickson was also inebriated as they drove back toward Grossman’s rental home from a restaurant where they had been drinking.. The attorney’s framing was not just that intoxication existed. but that it combined with speed to create a shorter margin for error than the children—crossing with their family—could possibly overcome.
The Iskander family’s account. as presented during the criminal proceedings. places the collision along Triunfo Canyon Road near Saddle Mountain Drive.. Misryoum notes that the boys were reportedly walking in the crosswalk area with their mother and younger sibling. with Mark and Jacob slightly behind at a distance measured in an arm’s length.. Panish argued that Erickson’s position and alleged racing behavior helped “block” the boys’ ability to escape—an assertion that jurors will likely be asked to evaluate alongside the physical evidence about vehicle speeds and impacts.
For Grossman’s side, the focus has also shifted between blame and causation.. Esther Holm. Grossman’s attorney. told jurors Friday that her client did not race. was not intoxicated. and never saw the children in the crosswalk.. Holm also pointed to the role of the roadway itself and the city’s documented handling of safety concerns at the crossing. including prior efforts involving lighting and the visibility challenges created by the curve of the road.
A significant point of dispute for jurors is how many vehicles were involved and what that means for identifying the first impact.. Holm asserted that investigators “zeroed in” on Grossman without checking out other vehicles thoroughly. and that evidence would show a “rush to judgment” that treated the entire accident as Grossman’s fault while disregarding Erickson.. She also contrasted Grossman’s actions after the collision—such as the vehicle coming to a stop and the emergency response attempt to call 911—with Erickson’s decision to leave the scene.
The case includes competing narratives about Erickson’s whereabouts and knowledge.. Tropp. Erickson’s attorney. rejected the racing characterization entirely. telling jurors that crash technicians concluded there was “one impact” involving Grossman’s vehicle.. Tropp said Erickson was traveling at a speed she put at 50 to 55 mph and that he spotted the Iskander family crossing. ultimately deciding that slamming the brakes could have been worse.. In her account. Erickson did not learn of the deadly incident until Grossman contacted him by phone shortly after. and Erickson then returned to the scene.
Misryoum perspective: what’s playing out in this civil trial is not only a factual dispute over speeds and impairment. but a battle over how jurors should interpret sequence—what happened first. what blocked movement. and what caused the collision to escalate from an emergency into tragedy.. Civil cases like this often feel “secondary” to criminal proceedings. but they can carry their own momentum because they frame responsibility in a different way: not whether someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. but what conduct contributed to wrongful deaths and what that means for accountability.
The lawyers’ arguments also reflect a broader pattern in high-profile crash litigation: when multiple vehicles and contested vehicle positions exist. the question often becomes less about a single moment and more about how decision-making converged.. Here. the courtroom is being asked to weigh testimony and video evidence. physical testing. and allegations about whether speed and impairment limited the ability to react in time.
As the trial moves beyond opening statements. jurors will likely scrutinize how the evidence supports—or undermines—the claim that Erickson’s alleged actions mattered as much as Grossman’s.. For the Iskander family. this case is about more than legal findings; it is about making sure the story of what happened is matched to the consequences.. For both defendants. the civil trial represents another chance to shape causation and reduce liability to what each side believes the facts can justify—an effort that will determine how responsibility is divided in the eyes of the court.