Peter Grossman finished testifying on Monday (June 8 ) in the trial over the Iskanders' wrongful death lawsuit. Grossman is a nationally prominent plastic surgeon whose father founded the Grossman Burn Foundation. He is married to Rebecca Grossman, who is in prison for killing young brothers Mark and Jacob Iskander while speeding and impaired in Westlake Village, California, on Sept. 29, 2020. Jurors said Rebecca Grossman and the driver witnesses said she was racing, Scott Erickson, are liable for $176 million in compensatory damages. They are now considering possible punitive damages. The Iskanders' lawyer Brian Panish questioned Grossman about transferring assets to try to shield them from creditors. He also asked about the "degree of reprehsiblity" regarding his wife's actions, which is a factor when considering punitive damages. "You cannot tell the jury what degree of reprehensibility you believe your wife engaged in in this case?" Panish asked. "No, sir. I believe I can," Grossman said. He said he believes his wife "acted negligently. That she was responsible for the accidental death of at least one of those children, and for that she is responsible and accepts that." "She accepts that?" Panish asked.Grossman said he's "not speaking for her, sir. I'm speaking for me right now." "Hold on. Stop right there. You believe she only killed one of the boys, right?" Panish asked. "That's not what I said, sir," Grossman answered. Panish repeated Grossman's testimony: "She was responsible for the accidental death of at least one of those children." "Yes," Grossman answered. "So is it one or two? Or you don't know?" Panish asked. "I don't think anybody knows," Grossman answered. "Oh, so therefore you don't think anyone could decide that your wife killed the two boys based on evidence, right?" Panish asked. "I think you are —" Grossman began as Panish interjected, "Is that right? Can you answer the question, sir? Don't tell me what you think." "Your wife believes the same thing. She doesn't believe she's responsible at all, does she?" "That is 100% not true, sir," Grossman answered. "Is she going to come here and tell us?" Panish asked. Judge Huey Cotton sustained a relevancy objection. "So on a scale of zero to 10 reprehensibility, would you say it's a zero?" Panish asked. "I can't answer the question," Grossman answered."Was it a five?" Panish asked. "I don't know how you put a scale on reprehensibility," Grossman answered. "Tell me, what could have been worse than driving at a high rate of speed, consuming alcohol and killing two kids in a crosswalk? What would be worse, more reprehensible in your mind as a parent of two children?" Panish asked. "Intent would have been worse. Having seen the children would have been worse. Driving in the hypothetical that you gave the other day would have been worse," Grossman answered. #law #court #attorney #punitivedamages - @meghannmcuniff