A civil wrongful-death trial opened in Van Nuys over a September 2020 crash in Westlake Village that killed two brothers, 11-year-old Mark Iskander and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander. The boys were struck while crossing a marked crosswalk at a three-way intersection with no traffic signal. Their parents, Nancy and Karim Iskander, are suing Rebecca Grossman, her husband Peter Grossman (the registered owner of the vehicle), and former Major League Baseball pitcher Scott Erickson, seeking monetary damages.

The case follows Grossman’s criminal conviction in 2024 for two counts of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter, and hit-and-run; she is serving a 15-years-to-life sentence. An appeals court denied Grossman’s criminal-case appeal, and her lawyers said they intend to seek review by the California Supreme Court. Grossman did not attend the civil trial and is not expected to testify; attorneys said Erickson will testify.

In opening statements, plaintiffs’ attorneys said evidence will show Grossman and Erickson were racing and had been drinking before the collision, and that Grossman’s Mercedes registered speeds in excess of 70–81 miles per hour in a 45-mph zone. Plaintiffs’ counsel referenced vehicle data, toxicology results they said showed alcohol and sedative or barbiturate-type drugs, photographs, video, witness clips, an animation, and debris from a white Mercedes found in the crosswalk. Plaintiffs also alleged that Erickson’s vehicle blocked the boys’ ability to escape, that Erickson fled the scene and later returned, hid for hours, and changed license plates, and that one witness said Erickson acknowledged seeing Grossman hit the children in his rearview mirror.

Defense attorneys disputed the plaintiffs’ account. Grossman’s lawyers said she did not see the children, was not racing, was not impaired, did not try to flee, and that investigators focused on her without fully investigating other vehicles. They noted the vehicle’s safety system automatically called 911 after the crash and that the car stopped about one-third of a mile (about 1,760 feet or 536 meters) to one-quarter of a mile (about 1,320 feet or 402 meters) down the road in different accounts presented. Grossman’s defense also pointed to a roadway curve, the intersection’s lack of stop signs, street lights, or flashing crosswalk signals, and prior local complaints about safety as contributing factors. Grossman’s team has called the criminal investigation a rush to judgment.

Erickson’s attorney disputed claims that he fled, that he knew Grossman had struck the children, or that he drove at the speeds described by witnesses. Erickson’s lawyer said crash technicians concluded there was a single impact involving Grossman’s vehicle, that Erickson will testify he was driving about 50–55 mph (80–89 km/h) and accelerated to avoid hitting the family, that he ran back to the scene after the crash and remained nearby for hours, and that a prior misdemeanor reckless-driving charge against him was dismissed after he completed a public service announcement about safe driving.

Jurors were shown excerpts of multiple witness depositions and testimony about road and crosswalk conditions, including local officials’ prior rejection of safety-light installations and a roadway curve that can make the crossing hard to see. Family testimony and multimedia shown to the jury included photographs and video of the deceased children and accounts of the immediate aftermath. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked jurors whether they could consider damages of $100 million or $200 million if supported by the evidence; the civil standard of proof was explained as a preponderance of the evidence.

The trial is expected to last roughly six to eight weeks or about two months. A judge has threatened Grossman with a $10,000 fine for an alleged unauthorized letter to the court; a separate hearing on that potential sanction is expected. The civil trial will determine civil liability and damages based on competing accounts of culpability, impairment, vehicle speeds, whether multiple vehicles were involved, and intersection safety.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (photographs) (video) (animation) (speeding) (testify)

Short answer: The article is primarily a news summary of a civil wrongful-death trial and provides almost no actionable help for an ordinary reader. It reports allegations, defenses, and courtroom tactics, but it does not give clear steps, practical advice, safety guidance, or educational depth that a reader could use soon. Below I break that judgment down point by point, then add concrete, general-purpose guidance the article missed.

Actionable information The article gives no clear, usable steps, choices, or instructions a reader can act on immediately. It describes evidence presented (photographs, video, witness clips, animation) and competing factual claims (alleged speeding, drinking, fleeing the scene, blocking an escape) but does not tell a reader what to do in similar circumstances, how to assess such evidence themselves, or how to protect their legal or personal interests. If a reader were a party or witness in the case, the piece provides no procedural guidance about civil trials, evidence preservation, witness obligations, or how to engage counsel. There are no links or references to resources that look like practical tools. Conclusion: no usable action.

Educational depth The article stays at the level of reporting courtroom allegations and denials without explaining the legal standards or causal reasoning behind them. It does not explain distinctions between criminal and civil trials (for example, burden of proof differences), how civil damages are calculated, how accident reconstructions typically work, or what evidence would reliably support claims of speeding or impairment. Numbers mentioned (alleged speeds over 80 mph in a 45-mph zone, a 15-year criminal sentence) are given as facts or claims but the piece does not explain how those numbers were derived, what tolerances or uncertainties exist in speed estimates, nor what role prior criminal convictions play in civil litigation. In short, the article does not teach systems, causes, or methods; it reports surface facts only.

Personal relevance For most readers the article is of limited direct relevance. It describes a tragic, specific event involving particular people in Westlake Village. The information could be materially important only to a small set of people: the family, their lawyers, the defendants, potential witnesses, or residents in that locality who care about the intersection mentioned. The piece does not extract general lessons about driving safety, bystander responsibilities, or legal steps after a collision, so it fails to translate the incident into broadly applicable guidance that would affect readers’ decisions about safety, finances, or legal responsibilities.

Public service function The article does not provide public-safety warnings, safety guidance, emergency instructions, or practical prevention advice. It recounts allegations (speeding, drinking) that imply dangerous behavior but does not use the incident to explain how to avoid similar tragedies, how to respond if you are involved in a crash, or how communities can address dangerous intersections. As a public-service piece it is weak: it informs about a trial but gives little context or preventive value.

Practical advice quality There is essentially no practical advice. The few procedural hints—Grossman will not attend civil proceedings, Erickson will testify—are case-specific and not translated into generalizable guidance for readers who might witness an accident, be involved in litigation, or seek compensation. Any implicit advice (for example that animations and video can be used in court) is not explained in sufficient detail for a layperson to act on it.

Long-term impact The article focuses on a short-lived courtroom phase (opening statements) and does not provide content that helps readers plan ahead, adopt safer habits, or change behavior. It does not examine systemic causes (road design, enforcement, alcohol access) or suggest reforms that would help prevent similar incidents. Therefore it offers no lasting benefit beyond informing about this specific legal proceeding.

Emotional and psychological impact The piece reports a sad and shocking event and may provoke distress. It does not provide calming context, resources for grief or trauma, or steps a reader could take if affected emotionally. For readers personally connected to traffic violence, the lack of supportive resources or constructive next steps could leave them feeling helpless rather than informed.

Clickbait or sensationalism The article relies on dramatic elements—children killed, alleged racing above 80 mph, fleeing the scene—to draw attention. It does not appear to substantively overpromise investigative findings, but it emphasizes allegations and vivid claims without deeper explanation. That emphasis can read as sensational because essential context and analysis are missing.

Missed opportunities to teach or guide The article presents clear openings it fails to use. It could have explained the difference between criminal convictions and civil liability, how speed and impairment are forensically established, what rights and obligations parties and witnesses have in civil versus criminal trials, and community responses to dangerous intersections. It also missed the chance to offer practical crash-response advice, basic evidence-preservation steps, or links to local traffic-safety resources. The article could have suggested simple ways for readers to evaluate media reports about accidents (check for primary evidence, understand who benefits from claims, look for corroboration).

Practical, general guidance the article failed to provide If you want useful, realistic steps drawing from universal principles rather than case-specific facts, here are concrete things a reader can use in real life.

If you witness a crash, prioritize immediate safety and basic documentation. Make sure you and others are out of immediate danger before helping. Call emergency services right away and give a precise location. If it is safe, take clear photos or video of vehicle positions, damage, skid marks, traffic-control devices, and visible injuries because raw images taken soon after an event are often the most reliable. Write down the time, weather, lighting conditions, and names and contact information of other witnesses while details are fresh. Do not move vehicles unless necessary for safety.

If you or someone you love is involved in a collision, protect legal options without delaying medical care. Seek medical attention even for injuries that seem minor, because records establish timelines and injury connections. Preserve evidence: keep copies of medical records, repair estimates, photographs, and any correspondence. If you plan to consult an attorney, choose one experienced in the relevant area (personal injury or wrongful death) and ask about contingency fees, the difference between criminal and civil proceedings, expected timelines, and possible outcomes. Do not post detailed accounts or admissions on social media; those can be used by opposing parties.

When evaluating news about crashes, check for primary evidence and question unsupported numeric claims. Ask whether reported speeds or impairment are from official reconstructions, eyewitness estimates, vehicle data recorders, or attorney assertions. Eyewitness speed estimates are often unreliable; professional reconstructions use physical evidence and can include error margins. Treat dramatic claims as initial allegations until corroborated by forensic reports or court findings.

To reduce personal risk while driving, apply defensive-driving habits. Observe speed limits and slow further in areas with known hazards such as complex intersections or frequent pedestrian crossings. Avoid distraction and never drive under the influence. If you encounter reckless drivers, keep distance and, if necessary, report their behavior to law enforcement rather than attempting to intervene.

If you are a community member concerned about a dangerous intersection, use straightforward civic channels to seek improvements. Document incidents and near-misses with dates, times, and descriptions; gather neighbors’ observations; contact local transportation or public works departments and request a safety study. Ask about engineering countermeasures such as improved signage, traffic-calming measures, crosswalk visibility enhancements, or signal timing changes. Attend local meetings or petition for a study if the agency response is slow; documented, repeated concerns are more likely to trigger action.

If emotionally affected by news of traumatic events, seek constructive support. Reach out to trusted friends or family, consider speaking with a counselor or support group specializing in trauma or grief, and limit repeated exposure to graphic reports if they increase distress.

These steps are broadly applicable and do not rely on any specific facts from the article. They turn the general themes of the report—crash, alleged speeding and impairment, legal aftermath—into practical, realistic actions a reader can use to protect safety, preserve evidence, evaluate reporting, and respond constructively in their community.

"Plaintiffs’ counsel presented photographs, video, witness clips, and an animation during opening statements, saying both drivers were racing and traveled at speeds exceeding 80 miles per hour in a 45-mph zone." This sentence lists dramatic evidence and then asserts racing and >80 mph speeds as the plaintiffs’ claim. It frames the plaintiffs’ version strongly by placing vivid items first, which makes readers likely to accept the high-speed claim as true. The wording favors the plaintiffs by using charged terms like "racing" without marking them as disputed facts, so it helps the family’s case and hides uncertainty.

"Attorneys for the family also alleged prolonged drinking by the drivers before the collision." The word "alleged" is correct but soft; it signals a claim while not challenging it. The sentence still groups both drivers together as drinkers, which can create a guilt-by-association impression. This phrasing helps the plaintiffs by linking both defendants to heavy drinking while not showing evidence or rebuttal here.

"One attorney said the other driver’s position blocked the boys’ ability to escape and accused that driver of fleeing the scene, later returning, hiding for hours, and changing license plates." This sentence presents a list of serious accusations in one flow, using vivid actions ("fleeing," "hiding," "changing license plates") that push strong negative images. Because they come from an attorney and are stated without immediate counterlanguage, the wording leans toward convincing readers these were facts, favoring the plaintiff’s narrative and increasing emotional impact.

"Defense attorneys for Grossman disputed allegations of impairment and speeding and argued that a known dangerous intersection contributed to the crash." This frames the defense response as defensive and shifts blame to the location. Calling the site a "known dangerous intersection" presents a factual-seeming claim that reduces driver responsibility. The construction helps Grossman’s defense by offering an alternative cause, and the phrase may downplay allegations against the driver without showing evidence.

"Erickson’s defense disputed claims that he fled, knew Grossman had struck the children, or drove at the speeds described by witnesses." The wording lists three denials succinctly, which gives the impression of a full rebuttal. The structure treats witness descriptions as potentially unreliable by calling them "claims" and "described by witnesses," which subtly undermines witness credibility and helps Erickson’s defense.

"Grossman is serving a 15-year sentence after a criminal conviction on two counts of second-degree murder for striking the boys while they crossed the street with their mother." This sentence states conviction and sentence plainly and unambiguously. The clear language leaves little room to question those facts. There is no mitigating language, so the wording strongly conveys culpability and supports the plaintiffs’ moral case.

"Grossman did not attend court and is not expected to testify in the civil case." This fact is neutral but can carry implied meaning: absence and not testifying can lead readers to infer avoidance or guilt. The sentence omits any reason for absence, allowing an implied negative judgment without evidence. That omission subtly biases the reader against Grossman.

"Plaintiffs’ counsel presented photographs, video, witness clips, and an animation during opening statements" Repeating the list of physical and multimedia items emphasizes the emotional and persuasive tools used by the plaintiffs. The emphasis on varied, vivid evidence before stating allegations primes readers to find the plaintiffs’ story credible. This ordering favors the plaintiffs by foregrounding sensory, persuasive material.

"Defense attorneys for Grossman disputed allegations of impairment and speeding and argued that a known dangerous intersection contributed to the crash." The phrase "disputed allegations" uses passive construction that focuses on the dispute, not on who presented the allegations. That passive tone softens the plaintiffs’ claims without directly confronting them, which can make the defense seem reasonable and reduce perceived severity of the accusations.

"Erickson’s defense disputed claims that he fled, knew Grossman had struck the children, or drove at the speeds described by witnesses. Attorneys indicated Erickson will testify." Stating that Erickson will testify after listing the defense denials gives his side more weight and suggests he will personally rebut accusations. The sequence favors Erickson by ending that portion with his expected testimony, which can leave readers with a sense his side will be heard and may be credible.

The text conveys grief and sorrow through its description of the deaths of two young brothers, Mark and Jacob Iskander. Words such as “killed,” “wrongful-death,” and the listing of their ages make the loss immediate and painful. This emotion is strong: the core factual framing centers on a tragic outcome, and the repeated naming of the children and their ages personalizes the loss to increase the reader’s sadness and compassion. The sorrow steers the reader toward sympathy for the family and a sense that the case concerns a serious moral and human harm rather than mere property or legal disputes.

Anger and moral outrage appear in the account of alleged reckless and harmful behavior by the drivers. Phrases claiming the drivers “were racing,” “traveled at speeds exceeding 80 miles per hour in a 45-mph zone,” and assertions of “prolonged drinking” and that a driver “fled the scene, later returning, hiding for hours, and changing license plates” evoke strong indignation. These descriptions are framed as accusations presented by plaintiffs’ counsel and are emotionally charged; the strength is high because the actions described violate social rules and suggest deliberate or grossly negligent wrongdoing. The purpose is to provoke the reader to view the defendants with suspicion and to support the family’s legal claims by framing the conduct as blameworthy and contemptible.

Fear and alarm are implied by the depiction of extreme speed and a dangerous collision at a “known dangerous intersection.” The mention of speeds “exceeding 80 miles per hour” in a “45-mph zone” and a “dangerous intersection” conveys risk and threat to public safety. This emotion is moderate to strong: the image of out-of-control vehicles and a hazardous place heightens concern about community safety and the potential for similar tragedies. The effect is to make readers wary and to underscore the seriousness of the alleged conduct, supporting the idea that accountability is needed to prevent future harm.

Distrust and suspicion are present in the claims that a driver “fled the scene, later returning, hiding for hours, and changing license plates,” and in the defense responses that dispute impairment and speeding. The prosecutors’ assertions of concealment are emotionally loaded to foster doubt about the defendants’ honesty. The strength is strong regarding the allegation of fleeing, because hiding and altering plates suggest intentional deception. The defensive denials introduce countervailing distrust of the plaintiffs’ narrative, creating tension and encouraging readers to question motives and credibility on both sides. This dynamic steers the reader to weigh credibility and to consider the conflict between accusation and denial.

Determination and seeking justice are implicit in the family’s legal action and the description of plaintiffs’ counsel presenting “photographs, video, witness clips, and an animation.” The purposeful assembling of evidence conveys resolve to prove the account and to obtain damages. This emotion is moderate; it frames the family and their lawyers as active seekers of truth and redress rather than passive victims. The result is to make readers respect the procedural effort and to see the civil case as a route to holding parties accountable and obtaining remedy.

Defensiveness and denial are explicit in the summary of defense strategies for both Grossman and Erickson. Words such as “disputed allegations,” “disputed claims,” and assertions that Erickson did not “flee” or “drive at the speeds described” communicate pushback. The emotional tone here is cautious and protective, of moderate strength, aiming to counterbalance the plaintiffs’ charged accusations and to preserve the defendants’ reputations. This shapes the reader’s reaction by injecting doubt and reminding readers that accusations in court are contested and must be proven.

The text also carries an undercurrent of tension and suspense through procedural details like “Opening statements have begun,” “Grossman is serving a 15-year sentence,” “Grossman did not attend court,” and “Erickson will testify.” These elements create a sense of an unfolding drama and unfinished resolution. The emotion is mild but persistent, inviting readers to follow the case and signaling that more revelations and judgments are forthcoming. The effect is to maintain engagement and to position the reader as a witness to an ongoing dispute.

The writing uses emotionally charged word choices and concrete details to enhance impact rather than neutral terms. Descriptions of high speeds, “racing,” “prolonged drinking,” and acts of hiding and changing license plates are vivid and likely to provoke stronger feelings than abstract legal phrasing would. The repetition of serious allegations—speeding, drinking, fleeing—reinforces their salience and makes them harder to dismiss. Personal details, such as the children’s names and ages, serve as a brief humanizing story that increases emotional investment. The contrast between dramatic accusations and the defenses’ denials functions as a comparative device that frames one side as culpable and the other as defensive, magnifying conflict. The mention of physical evidence—photographs, video, witness clips, and an animation—adds concreteness and authority to the plaintiffs’ narrative, making the accusations feel more credible and urgent. These rhetorical tools concentrate attention on culpability and harm, steer sympathy to the family, and heighten scrutiny of the defendants, thereby shaping reader opinion toward viewing the event as a tragic wrong requiring remedy.