In July 2026, a Los Angeles judge reduced former MLB pitcher Scott Erickson's civil damages liability by $14 million after pretrial settlements between other defendants and the Iskander family. Erickson and socialite Rebecca Grossman hit and killed two brothers, 11-year-old Mark and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander, in a marked crosswalk in Westlake Village, California in 2020, driving at approximately 80 mph in a 45 mph zone.
A jury had awarded the family $176 million in compensatory damages and ordered Erickson to pay more than $109 million—until the offset applied. This reduction happened because California law allows defendants found liable for the same harm to offset damages when co-defendants have already settled with the injured parties. Understanding how this offset works matters if you're tracking the case, evaluating settlement offers in your own claim, or learning how joint liability shapes what defendants actually owe.
Official resource:
- Read the official notice from Mynewsla — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- The Incident and Jury Verdict
- The Pretrial Settlements and Offset Ruling
- Erickson's Reduced Liability
- Why Offsets Matter in Joint Liability Cases
- What This Means for Readers and Similar Cases
- Frequently Asked Questions
The Incident and Jury Verdict
On September 29, 2020, Erickson and Grossman struck the two boys while they crossed at a marked crosswalk in Westlake Village. The crash occurred at approximately 80 mph in a 45 mph zone.
Both children died at the scene. A Los Angeles jury found both defendants negligent in June 2026 and awarded the Iskander family $176 million in compensatory damages: $107 million for wrongful death claims and $69 million combined for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims against Erickson. The jury also ordered Erickson to pay $1.17 million in punitive damages and Grossman to pay $21 million..
The Pretrial Settlements and Offset Ruling
Before the trial began, the Iskander family's attorney negotiated separate settlements with Grossman. Nancy Iskander, the mother, settled her NIED claim against Grossman for $12 million, and her surviving son Zachary settled his claim for $2 million—totaling $14 million in settlements that occurred before the jury verdict. In July 2026, Superior Court Judge Huey Cotten ruled that Erickson is entitled to offset his liability by the full $14 million because California's joint and several liability doctrine allows defendants to reduce their damages when co-defendants have already compensated the injured parties for the same harm. This ruling reflects the principle that an injured party should not recover twice for the same losses.
Erickson's Reduced Liability
Before the offset, the jury's award assigned Erickson specific damages to each family member: $88.5 million to Nancy and $34 million to Zachary for their NIED claims. The $14 million offset reduced Erickson's liability to Nancy from $88.5 million to $76.5 million and his liability to Zachary from $34 million to $32 million. Erickson's total remaining civil liability is approximately $109.67 million in compensatory damages plus $1.17 million in punitive damages. This remains substantial even after the offset, and it does not account for legal fees, interest, or ongoing collection efforts by the family.
Why Offsets Matter in Joint Liability Cases
California's joint and several liability system means that if multiple defendants cause the same harm, an injured party can collect the full judgment from any single defendant. This protects plaintiffs from the risk that a defendant cannot pay.
However, it also creates a fairness question: should the injured party collect $88.5 million from both Erickson and Grossman, totaling $177 million for the same loss? Offsets prevent double recovery. Once Grossman settled with Nancy and Zachary, Erickson's share of liability for the same injuries shrinks by that amount. This is not forgiveness or a loophole—it reflects the principle that compensation should equal actual harm, not multiply with each defendant's settlement or judgment.
What This Means for Readers and Similar Cases
If you are negotiating a settlement in a multi-defendant case, understand that settlements with one defendant can reduce—not eliminate—other defendants' liability. This can work in your favor (faster payment from one defendant) or against it (lower total recovery if defendants are judgment-proof). Consult an attorney to evaluate whether settling early with one defendant at a reduced amount is better than waiting for a jury verdict and potentially collecting more from a wealthier defendant.
The Iskander case also illustrates the limits of large jury awards when defendants face insolvency or appeals. Erickson's $109.67 million obligation is a legal judgment, but collection depends on his income, assets, and ability to satisfy the award over time or through settlement negotiations. Many large civil judgments result in partial payment or structured settlements rather than full cash recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the offset reduce the Iskander family's total compensation?
No. The family received $14 million in direct settlements before trial and remains entitled to the full jury award from Erickson (minus the offset). The offset prevents the family from collecting the same damages twice, not from receiving full compensation.
Can Grossman's criminal conviction affect the civil offset?
No. The civil judgment and criminal conviction are separate cases. Grossman was convicted of second-degree murder and vehicular manslaughter and is serving 15 years to life in prison, but criminal guilt does not change how civil damages and offsets are calculated.
What if Erickson cannot pay the full $109.67 million?
Collection would proceed through garnishment, asset liens, or negotiated payment plans over time. The family's attorney can pursue enforcement actions, but recovery depends on Erickson's income and assets available to satisfy the judgment.