Can You Be Liable for a Crash You Didn’t Cause? Rebecca Grossman Verdict Explains

A California jury has answered a legal question that could have consequences far beyond one tragic case: can someone be held financially responsible for a fatal crash even if their vehicle never struck the victims?

According to a jury verdict issued this week, the answer can be yes. Former Los Angeles Dodgers player Scott Erickson was found legally responsible alongside convicted killer Rebecca Grossman and ordered to pay part of a $176 million damages award to the family of two young brothers killed in a 2020 crash, despite Erickson’s vehicle never making contact with the children.

The verdict stems from the deaths of Mark and Jacob Iskander, aged 11 and 8, who were struck and killed while crossing a street in Westlake Village, California. Following an eight-week civil trial, jurors found both Grossman and Erickson responsible for conduct that led to the fatal collision and awarded damages to the boys’ parents, Nancy and Karim Iskander, and their younger brother, Zachary.

The jury’s decision rested on a legal principle many drivers never think about until a lawsuit arrives. In civil court, responsibility can extend beyond the person who actually causes the crash.

Why Was Scott Erickson Found Liable?

The key issue for jurors was not whether Erickson’s vehicle hit the children. It did not. Erickson never struck either child.

That fact alone was not enough to keep him off the verdict form.

Instead, jurors examined evidence that Grossman and Erickson were allegedly racing one another shortly before the crash. The jury ultimately concluded that Erickson acted negligently and that both individuals “acted in concert” during the events leading to the collision.

The jury concluded that taking part in the dangerous activity was enough to create responsibility, even though Erickson never struck the children himself.

For drivers, the case shows how quickly responsibility can spread beyond the person behind the wheel that causes the impact.

Why the Financial Award Was So Large

The jury awarded the Iskander family $176 million in damages, reflecting the devastating impact of losing two children.

Civil wrongful death cases focus on compensating surviving family members rather than punishing criminal conduct. Juries may consider emotional suffering, loss of companionship, future support, and the long-term effects on parents and siblings when calculating damages.

Jurors also found that Grossman and Erickson acted with malice, a finding that could support additional punitive damages designed to punish especially reckless conduct.

Grossman’s husband, Dr. Peter Grossman, was also named as a defendant because he owned the vehicle she was driving at the time of the crash.

The Criminal Case Was Separate

The civil verdict follows Grossman’s criminal convictions, which were upheld earlier this year.

Prosecutors argued that Grossman had been drinking, had taken Valium, and was driving at speeds reaching 81 mph in a 45-mph zone shortly before striking the boys in a marked crosswalk.

Criminal courts determine guilt and punishment. Civil courts determine financial responsibility. While Grossman’s criminal convictions established her legal culpability, the civil trial examined who should compensate the family and whether others shared responsibility for the events that led to the tragedy.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said the case demonstrated that wealth, status, and personal connections do not place individuals beyond the reach of the law when reckless conduct causes catastrophic harm.

What This Verdict Means Beyond This Case

The $176 million figure grabbed headlines, but the more important part of the ruling may be who the jury decided should share responsibility.

Many people assume accountability begins and ends with the individual who directly causes an accident. Courts often take a broader view. When multiple people participate in conduct that creates a foreseeable danger, financial responsibility can extend to everyone involved.

Street racing is an obvious example, but the same logic can appear in other cases where multiple people contribute to a dangerous situation.

For lawyers, insurers, and defendants facing civil claims, the verdict highlights how quickly financial exposure can expand when a jury concludes that several parties contributed to a deadly outcome.

For everyone else, it answers a surprisingly important legal question: you do not always have to cause the impact to share responsibility for the consequences.