Family seeks $439M from Grossman and former Dodgers pitcher in killing of 2 boys

VAN NUYS, LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- A jury has begun deliberating on how much financial compensation, if any, should be awarded to the family of 11-year-old Mark Iskander and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander, more than five years after the brothers were struck and killed in a Westlake Village crosswalk, and two years after Rebecca Grossman was convicted of second-degree murder.

During closing arguments Monday, attorney Brian Panish, representing the Iskander family, told jurors the family is seeking $439 million in damages. The claim targets both Grossman and former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Scott Erickson, whom the family alleges was drinking with Grossman and street racing with her on the night of the crash.

"These people, they didn't invest in stocks - they may have some - but they invested in their children," Panish said of the Iskanders.

Panish argued that Erickson is a pathological liar and attempted to evade responsibility.

"Hiding in the bushes, admitted lying repeatedly to the police, and admitted switching vehicles and cold-plating... Who does that? That's a criminal act. That's a criminal act," he told jurors.

Prosecutors said Grossman and Erickson were traveling at speeds up to 80 mph before Grossman's vehicle struck the boys as they crossed the street with their mother and siblings.

Erickson's attorney, Jeff Braun, countered that Erickson neither hit the children nor raced Grossman and was not impaired.

"No expert has testified in this case that Mr. Erickson was impaired," Braun said.

Grossman's attorney, Esther Holm, argued that Grossman was not drunk, not racing and that the crash was caused by a hazardous crosswalk design.

"The city knew about this dangerous condition for years. They ignored it -- it was important enough that citizens complained, that they put it on the city council agenda," Holm said.

Panish told jurors that an estimated 24 million vehicles have passed through the crosswalk without incident, calling the defense argument unfounded.