If you were anywhere near a screen in 2014, you probably saw the video. It was peak "Instagram Playboy" era. Dan Bilzerian, a man whose entire brand was built on guns, private jets, and a rotating cast of models, stood on the edge of a roof. Beside him was Janice Griffith, an adult film star. Seconds later, he picked her up and launched her toward a pool.
She didn't make it.
Well, not quite. Griffith clipped the edge of the pool, resulting in a broken foot and a legal firestorm that became a case study in celebrity liability and "bro-culture" ego. But while the video was short, the aftermath was long, weird, and filled with some of the most aggressive legal posturing you'll ever read.
The Stunt That Went Sideways
The whole thing was meant to be a photo shoot for Hustler. You've gotta remember that at this time, Bilzerian was trying to solidify his status as a living legend of excess. Hustler wanted something edgy. Throwing a naked woman off a roof into a pool seemed to fit the bill for everyone involved.
Janice Griffith was 19 at the time. She agreed to the stunt. Honestly, that’s the part that always gets lost in the comment sections. This wasn't a random act of violence; it was a contracted, planned event. But planning doesn't always equal execution.
When Dan threw her, the trajectory was off. Some people say he just didn't have the strength or the aim. Others—including Bilzerian’s high-powered legal team—claimed Griffith panicked. They argued that she grabbed his shirt at the last second, which killed the momentum and caused her to fall short of the water.
📖 Related: Is The Weeknd a Christian? The Truth Behind Abel’s Faith and Lyrics
The result? A loud crack, a lot of screaming, and a broken foot that effectively sidelined Griffith from her work.
Dan Bilzerian Janice Griffith: The Legal War of Words
Usually, when a celebrity hurts someone during a shoot, there’s a quiet settlement. A check is written, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is signed, and everyone moves on. Not here.
When Griffith’s lawyer, Shoham Solouki, sent a letter demanding $85,000 to cover medical bills and lost income, Bilzerian didn't flinch. He hired Tom Goldstein. If you follow the Supreme Court, you know Goldstein—he's the founder of SCOTUSblog and a heavyweight in the legal world.
Goldstein’s response letter is basically legendary in legal circles for how much "big deck" energy it radiated. He didn't just deny the claim; he mocked it. He called the whole thing a "tragi-comedy" and told Griffith’s lawyer that the lawsuit was "sanctionably frivolous."
The "Act of God" Defense
The most bizarre part of the legal defense? Hustler’s attorneys reportedly tried to categorize the accident as an "act of God."
👉 See also: Shannon Tweed Net Worth: Why She is Much More Than a Rockstar Wife
Basically, they were arguing that because the stunt was inherently risky and Griffith had practiced the "flight" with Dan earlier that day, the injury was just an unfortunate twist of fate rather than negligence.
Goldstein’s letter went even further. He basically told Griffith to box up her belongings and get ready to hand them over to Bilzerian once he won the inevitable counter-suit. It was aggressive. It was petty. It was very on-brand for the Bilzerian camp.
Why the Case Actually Matters
You might think this is just tabloid junk, but the Dan Bilzerian Janice Griffith incident actually touches on a few real-world issues regarding the "influencer" economy and workplace safety in "unconventional" industries.
- Assumption of Risk: This is a huge legal concept. If you agree to be thrown off a roof, do you waive your right to sue if the person throwing you messes up? The courts generally say yes, provided the person didn't act with "gross negligence."
- The Power Imbalance: You had a multi-millionaire with a fleet of lawyers against a 19-year-old performer. Griffith eventually sued both Bilzerian and Hustler (LFP Internet Group) in late 2014.
- Contractual Chaos: Because the shoot was for Hustler, Bilzerian argued he was essentially an "employee" or contractor of the magazine, shifting the liability away from his personal bank account and toward the corporate entity.
The lawsuit dragged on through 2015. There were demurrers, cross-complaints, and a lot of billable hours. While Griffith sought damages for her medical expenses and the fact that she couldn't work with a cast on her foot, the "assumption of risk" defense is a hard wall to climb over in California law.
The Cultural Hangover
Whatever happened to Janice Griffith? She stayed in the industry and became quite successful, often speaking out about the incident with a sort of "can you believe this happened?" tone. She didn't let the broken foot define her career, though she’s been vocal about how Bilzerian lacked any real empathy after the fall.
✨ Don't miss: Kellyanne Conway Age: Why Her 59th Year Matters More Than Ever
As for Dan, he just kept being Dan. This incident was just one of many controversies that year, including an incident at a Miami nightclub where he was accused of kicking a woman in the face. For his fan base, the roof toss wasn't a "cancellation" moment—it was just another Tuesday in the life of a guy who lived without filters.
Lessons From the Roof
Looking back at the Dan Bilzerian Janice Griffith saga, there are some pretty clear takeaways for anyone working in the creator space or high-risk content:
- Insurance is not optional. If you are filming a stunt, even a "fun" one for social media, personal liability is a nightmare.
- Assumption of risk has limits. Just because someone says "yes" to a stunt doesn't mean you have a license to be reckless. However, proving "recklessness" vs. "accident" is incredibly expensive.
- The "shirt grab" defense. If you're being thrown into a pool, don't touch the thrower. Physics is a harsh mistress.
Ultimately, the case serves as a reminder that the "wild west" of early 2010s social media had real-world consequences. People got hurt, lawyers got rich, and the internet moved on to the next viral clip.
If you're ever in a position where a bearded millionaire asks to chuck you off a building for "the 'gram," maybe just suggest a nice tripod shot instead. Your ankles—and your legal fees—will thank you.
To dig deeper into the legal nuances of these types of cases, you can check out the public dockets for the Superior Court of California, specifically under the Janice Griffith v. LFP Internet Group filing. It’s a fascinating look at how "stunt contracts" are actually written and defended.