The Janice Griffith lawsuit was a personal injury case filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on December 16, 2014, after Dan Bilzerian threw the then-18-year-old adult film performer off the roof of his Hollywood Hills home during a Hustler magazine photoshoot, breaking her foot when it clipped the edge of the pool. Griffith sued Bilzerian and LFP Publishing Group LLC, Hustler’s parent company, and the case was dismissed on December 28, 2015, following settlement activity on the docket. The settlement terms were not made public.1UniCourt. Janice Griffith vs LFP Internet Group LLC et al
What Happened at the Photoshoot
On April 23, 2014, Hustler hired Griffith for a shoot at Bilzerian’s home meant to showcase his lifestyle. During the session, the idea came up for Bilzerian to throw Griffith off the roof into the swimming pool below.2Yahoo Finance. King of Instagram Sued for Allegedly Throwing Porn Star Off Roof Griffith later said she was assured the stunt would be safe.3TMZ. Dan Bilzerian Lawsuit Janice Griffith Porn Star Roof Pool Broken Foot
Video that Bilzerian posted to social media shows him lifting Griffith and tossing her off the roof toward the pool. She landed in the water, but her foot struck the pool’s edge on the way down and fractured.4New York Daily News. Naked Porn Star Tossed Off Roof of Hollywood Mansion Breaks Foot Before Splashing Into Pool She confirmed the injury shortly afterward on Twitter.5HuffPost UK. Naked Porn Star Janice Griffith Breaks Foot After Dan Bilzerian Tosses Her Off Roof
The Pre-Suit Demand for $85,000
Before filing, Griffith’s attorney, Shoham J. Solouki of Solouki Savoy LLP, sent a demand for $85,000 in compensation for the broken foot.6Above the Law. The Most Epic Lawyer Response Ever to a Porn Star Threatening to Sue Bilzerian’s attorney, Tom Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, answered with a letter that previewed the defense’s core theory: that Griffith was under contract with Hustler and had voluntarily agreed to the stunt after practicing it, making any suit “sanctionably frivolous.”7Above the Law. The Most Hilarious Lawyer Letter Ever Goldstein also argued that Griffith herself caused the bad landing by grabbing Bilzerian’s shirt mid-throw and altering her trajectory.8TMZ. Dan Bilzerian Not My Fault Roof-Tossing Stunt Went Wrong
The Complaint and the Parties
Griffith filed her personal injury suit on December 16, 2014, captioned Janice Griffith v. LFP Internet Group LLC et al., case number BC566899.9Courthouse News Service. Model Sues Hustler She named Bilzerian and LFP Internet Group LLC, which she identified as doing business as Hustler Magazine. The correct corporate entity was LFP Publishing Group LLC, which was later substituted in the docket.1UniCourt. Janice Griffith vs LFP Internet Group LLC et al
How the Defense Fought Back
Both defendants pushed back with cross-complaints. LFP Publishing Group filed a cross-complaint for negligence, indemnity, and contribution on January 16, 2015. Bilzerian filed his own cross-complaint for indemnity on February 3, 2015. Nate Igor Smith, a participant in the production, was also brought in as a cross-defendant.1UniCourt. Janice Griffith vs LFP Internet Group LLC et al10PlainSite. Janice Griffith v LFP Internet Group LLC et al
Bilzerian’s team continued to argue that Griffith had assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily agreeing to the practiced stunt, and that her own conduct during the throw caused the fall to go wrong.11ABA Journal. Is There a Standard of Care for Tossing a Naked Porn Star From a Roof
Settlement and Dismissal
The case never reached trial. Settlement activity began appearing on the docket in October 2015. A motion to determine a good faith settlement involving cross-defendant Nathaniel D. Smith was filed on October 2, 2015, followed by a notice contesting that application on October 19, and the court ruled on Smith’s good faith settlement motion on October 30, 2015.10PlainSite. Janice Griffith v LFP Internet Group LLC et al
A request and entry of dismissal for the entire action was filed on December 28, 2015. A memorandum of costs totaling $4,595.03 was filed on March 15, 2016. The docket lists the case as closed and dismissed.1UniCourt. Janice Griffith vs LFP Internet Group LLC et al The specific terms of any agreement between Griffith and the defendants were not made public. Because dismissal followed settlement activity, the case appears to have ended through a negotiated resolution rather than a ruling on the merits.
The Legal Question the Settlement Left Open
Because the case settled, no court ruled on the unusual assumption-of-risk question at its center. Under California law, as set out in the state Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Knight v. Jewett, assumption of risk comes in two forms. Primary assumption of risk completely bars recovery when the injury arises from a risk inherent in the activity and the defendant owes no duty to guard against it. Secondary assumption of risk applies when the defendant does owe a duty but the plaintiff knowingly encountered a risk created by the defendant’s negligence, and damages are reduced proportionally under comparative fault.
Bilzerian’s side argued the primary version: Griffith had agreed to the stunt, practiced it, and was under contract with Hustler, so being thrown from a roof was inherent to what she signed up for.11ABA Journal. Is There a Standard of Care for Tossing a Naked Porn Star From a Roof The doctrine does not, however, shield defendants who unreasonably increase the risks of an activity or who act with gross negligence. Whether tossing an 18-year-old from a rooftop fell within the inherent risks of an adult magazine shoot was never tested, because the case ended before a judge had to decide.