In June 2026, a Los Angeles County jury returned a verdict of more than $198 million for the family of Mark and Jacob Iskander, two brothers, ages 11 and 8, who were killed in 2020 while crossing a street with their family in Westlake Village, California. The jury held Rebecca Grossman and former Major League Baseball pitcher Scott Erickson responsible, and it found that both acted with malice.
Behind the headline number is a case that explains how the civil justice system works when a crash is caused by something worse than a simple mistake. It shows what compensation for the loss of a child can look like, why a jury may choose to punish a defendant on top of compensating a family, and why a criminal conviction and a civil lawsuit are two separate paths to accountability. For any family dealing with a crash caused by reckless driving, these distinctions matter.
The Crash and the Lawsuit
On the evening of September 29, 2020, the Iskander family was crossing a street in a marked crosswalk in Westlake Village. According to the family’s attorneys, as one vehicle sped through the intersection, the boys’ mother, Nancy Iskander, lunged forward and pulled her youngest son out of the way. Mark and Jacob did not survive.
The family filed a civil lawsuit in 2021. It alleged that Grossman and Erickson had been drinking together earlier that night and were driving at high speed on a residential street when the boys were struck. Both defendants denied racing. Their attorneys argued that neither was impaired, and that the deaths were the result of an unintended accident. Grossman and Erickson each pointed to the other as the driver who hit the boys.
Separately, Grossman was convicted in a criminal trial, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has stated that the conviction was based on her driving up to 81 miles per hour on a residential street after drinking at a bar. She is serving a sentence of 15 years to life in prison. The civil case, however, was a different proceeding with a different purpose.
The First Verdict: $176 Million in Compensatory Damages
After a civil trial that lasted roughly two months in Van Nuys, the jury first decided liability and compensatory damages. In early June 2026, it found Grossman and Erickson liable and awarded the family $176 million for wrongful death and emotional distress.
Compensatory damages are the foundation of any injury or wrongful death case. They are meant to compensate the family for what was lost, including the emotional suffering of those left behind. In this case, reporting indicates that $69 million of the award was for the emotional suffering of the boys’ mother and their younger brother, Zachary, who witnessed the deaths. No dollar figure can replace a child, and the family’s attorney noted that there was no celebration in the outcome. But the law gives juries one tool for recognizing the magnitude of that kind of loss, and that tool is financial.
The Second Phase: Punitive Damages
The same jury also found that both defendants had acted with malice. That finding opened the door to a second phase of the trial, focused not on what the family lost but on whether the defendants should be punished.
Punitive damages are different from compensatory damages. They are not meant to make a family whole. Their purpose is to punish conduct the jury considers especially wrongful and to discourage others from behaving the same way. After a four-day punitive phase, the jury awarded $21 million against Grossman and $1.17 million against Erickson, for a total of $22.17 million. Together with the earlier award, the verdict reached $198.17 million.
The family’s attorney, Brian Panish, had asked the jury for $20 million against Grossman and $1 million against Erickson. The jury exceeded both figures. During this phase, the plaintiffs also presented evidence that the defendants had attempted to conceal the extent of their personal assets to avoid paying a judgment. Attorneys for Grossman argued that the earlier $176 million award had already sent a sufficient message. The jury disagreed.
Both sides have indicated that an appeal is expected, so this verdict may not be the final word.
How Rare Are Punitive Damages?
Punitive damages are the exception in personal injury law, not the rule. Legal commentators covering this case pointed to U.S. Department of Justice statistics showing that punitive damages have historically been awarded in only about 5 percent of cases in which the plaintiff wins. Most injury cases never reach that stage.
That is because punitive damages generally require more than showing that someone was careless. A plaintiff typically has to show conduct that goes beyond ordinary negligence, such as intentional wrongdoing or a conscious disregard for the safety of others. Each state sets its own standards, and some states place limits on how much a jury can award. That is why the facts of a case, and the law of the state where it is filed, matter so much.
The Types of Damages in a Wrongful Death Case
The Iskander verdict also helps illustrate the different kinds of damages that can be part of a wrongful death claim. Economic damages cover measurable financial losses, such as funeral and burial expenses, medical bills before death, and the financial support a person would have provided. Non-economic damages address losses that are harder to put a number on, such as grief, the loss of companionship and guidance, and the emotional suffering of surviving family members. Punitive damages, where they are available, sit on top of both.
Which of these a family can recover, and who is allowed to bring the claim, depends on state law. In a case involving the death of a child, the emotional dimension of the loss is often at the center of the claim, as it was here.
Two Separate Systems: Criminal and Civil
One of the most important lessons from the Iskander case is that criminal and civil cases are independent of each other. A criminal case is brought by the government. Its purpose is to determine guilt and impose punishment, such as prison time. A civil case is brought by the injured person or the family. Its purpose is to determine responsibility and provide compensation.
The two can run on separate tracks and reach different results. In this case, the civil jury held Scott Erickson responsible even though the criminal case focused on Grossman. Civil juries also apply a different standard of proof than criminal juries. A family does not need to wait for, or depend on, a criminal outcome to pursue justice in civil court.
The case also shows how shared responsibility works. When the conduct of more than one person contributes to a tragedy, a jury can examine each person’s role and hold each one accountable. Disagreements between defendants over who did what do not prevent a jury from finding that both were responsible, and a family should not have to untangle those arguments alone.
What This Means for Families After a Reckless Driving Crash
Not every serious crash is treated as just an accident. When a crash involves drunk driving, street racing, or other reckless behavior, the legal options available to victims can expand beyond what a typical car accident claim provides.
Several lessons stand out. First, more than one party can be held responsible, even when it is disputed who struck the victims. Second, behavior before the crash can matter as much as the moment of impact, which is why evidence like receipts, witness statements, phone records, and vehicle data can be so important. Third, a verdict is only valuable if it can be collected, which is why investigating a defendant’s resources is part of a thorough case. And fourth, these cases take time. The crash happened in 2020 and the verdict came in 2026, six years later.
Wrongful death laws, including who is allowed to file a claim and what damages are available, differ from state to state. If you have lost a loved one in a crash, speaking with an experienced attorney early can help you understand your options and make sure important evidence is preserved.
If you are ever involved in a crash where you suspect another driver was drinking or driving recklessly, a few steps can protect your rights. Call 911 and make sure police are on the scene. Seek medical attention for anyone who is hurt. If you are able, take photographs and note the names of witnesses. And avoid giving recorded statements to an insurance company before you have had the chance to speak with an attorney.
No verdict can undo a loss like the one the Iskander family suffered. What it can do is hold the responsible parties accountable and show that the legal system takes the loss of life seriously.
If you or a loved one has been affected by a crash caused by someone else’s reckless behavior, CEO Lawyer is here to help. Call us 24/7 at (833) 254-2923 for a free case evaluation.
This article discusses a verdict obtained by another law firm. Results depend on the unique facts of each case, and past outcomes do not guarantee similar results.
