My cousin thought the cliff dive was funny. I shattered 14 bones. Now I’m shattering his life. The orthopedic surgeon’s hands moved across the X-ray images projected on the wall, tracing fracture lines like he was mapping a demolished city, compound fracture of the right femur, shattered pelvis in three locations, crushed L2 and L3 vertebrae, bilateral radius and ulna brakes, fractured clavicle, six rib fractures with one puncturing your lung, and catastrophic damage to your right ankle that we’re still assessing. His voice carried the detached professionalism of someone who delivered
terrible news daily, but I saw something flicker in his eyes when he got to the ankle. That’s the one that concerns me most long-term. The fall pattern suggests you landed feet first on rock, then your body compressed and twisted as momentum carried you forward. Your right foot essentially exploded on impact.
We’ve stabilized everything surgically, but you’re looking at minimum 18 months of recovery, possibly longer. You may never walk normally again. The words felt unreal, like he was describing someone else’s body, not the wreckage of the collegiate track athlete who’d been on pace to qualify for Olympic trials before my cousin Garrett decided that pushing me off a 60-oot cliff would be hilarious content for his extreme sports YouTube channel.
The morphine made everything feel distant and cotton wrapped, but the pain broke through in waves that left me gasping and sweating through hospital gowns. My mother sat beside the bed, holding my left hand because my right arm was immobilized in external fixation, metal rods piercing through skin to hold shattered bones in alignment.
She’d aged a decade in the week since the fall, her face gaunt and her eyes red- rimmed from crying. My father stood at the window, staring out at the San Diego skyline with his shoulders rigid, the way he stood when he was containing rage. Neither of them had mentioned Garrett’s name since I’d regained consciousness 3 days after surgery. And that silence felt heavier than anything they could have said.
The police had already been by twice taking statements and photographs, treating my hospital room like a crime scene, because that’s what it was. Though the detective named Kowalsski had been carefully neutral about whether they’d file charges, he’d shown me phone footage that bystanders had captured.
The video shaky but clear enough to see Garrett’s hands on my shoulders, the sudden shove, my body falling and tumbling through air before smashing onto rocks 30 ft above the water. The footage had already gone viral, shared millions of times with captions about toxic prank culture and the dangers of social media stunts.
Garrett worked as a professional content creator, one of those guys who’d built a following of 3 million subscribers by filming himself doing progressively more dangerous and illegal activities in pursuit of views and sponsorship money. His channel Extreme Garrett featured him base jumping off buildings, trespassing in abandoned places, confronting strangers in public, and pulling elaborate pranks that often resulted in property damage or people getting hurt.
He made somewhere around $40,000 monthly from ad revenue and brand deals, living in a Venice Beach apartment that cost more than my parents’ mortgage and driving a customized Jeep Wrangler that he wrote off as business expense. He was 28 to my 23 and we’d grown up close, spending summers at our grandmother’s lakehouse in Northern California, where he’d taught me to swim and fish and navigate the woods.
That version of Garrett had been protective and funny, the cool, older cousin who made family gatherings bearable. The person who’d pushed me off that cliff was someone different entirely, someone I’d watched transform over 5 years as his channel grew, and his personality warped into performance.
The cliff diving video had been planned as his biggest stunt yet, promoted for weeks across his social media platforms, as something epic and dangerous that would break the internet. He’d rented a boat and hired a videographer, inviting a dozen people from his circle of influencer friends and hangers on. I’d come because he’d specifically called me, using the family connection to convince me it would be fun, that he’d make sure everything was safe, that maybe I could even get some exposure for my own athletic career from appearing in his content. I should have known better.
I’d seen his pranks get meaner and more reckless over the years. Watched him throw a friend’s phone into a lake for views. Watched him fake a robbery that traumatized a convenience store clerk. Watched him push boundaries until they shattered. But he was family and some stupid part of me believed that meant something to him.
That blood would create limits. His content hunger couldn’t cross. I’d been catastrophically wrong about that. The day of the dive had been perfect California weather. 78 degrees with clear skies and calm ocean water below the cliffs at Sunset Cliff’s Natural Park, a place where cliff jumping was technically illegal, but rarely enforced.
Garrett had set up multiple camera angles, positioning his videographer on the boat below, and mounting GoPros on tripods at the cliff edge. He’d gathered everyone in a circle and explained the plan with the manic energy that characterized all his shoots, talking fast and loud and constantly checking how things looked on camera. The whole point is authenticity, raw reactions, real danger. We’re not faking anything here. Some of you will jump, some won’t.
But either way, we’re capturing genuine human emotion facing mortality. He’d looked directly at me when he said that last part, and something in his expression should have warned me. I’d assumed I was there as support. Maybe background presence in his footage. Certainly not his primary subject. That assumption had nearly killed me.
We’d climbed to the jump point, a flat rock outcropping 63 ft above the water, where experienced divers sometimes jumped in controlled conditions with spotters and safety protocols. Garrett had none of that. He had cameras and an audience and the conviction that his content mattered more than anyone’s safety.
People jumped one by one, some successfully, others backing out at the last second while Garrett filmed their fear and mocked their hesitation for his audience. His girlfriend, a model named Sienna, who appeared in most of his videos, had jumped gracefully and surfaced laughing, playing to the camera even while treading water.
His best friend, Kyle, had jumped poorly, landing flat and coming up coughing, but uninjured. The whole scene had the atmosphere of a party. People drinking and shouting encouragement. Nobody acknowledging that we were doing something genuinely dangerous without proper preparation. When my turn came, I’d walked to the edge and looked down at the water, calculating the jump the way I’d been trained to calculate hurdles and stride length, understanding that proper form meant the difference between success and catastrophe. Garrett had moved beside me with his camera phone, filming a
close-up of my face while asking if I was scared, if I thought I could make the jump, if my track training prepared me for real danger, or just running in circles. His tone had been teasing, but with an edge I didn’t like. The way he sounded when he was building towards something mean for content.
I told him I was going to back out, that the jump felt unsafe without proper instruction, that I’d rather not risk injury during my competitive season. He laughed and called me cautious, boring, domesticated by my college athletics program. The insults felt performative, delivered for his audience rather than me, but they stung anyway because part of me had always wanted Garrett’s approval.
Then he’d moved behind me, still filming, his voice saying something about giving me motivation. I’d felt his hands on my shoulders, firm pressure, and for a split second, I’d thought he was steadying me or offering support. Then he pushed hard, two-handed shove that sent me stumbling forward off the edge before I could process what was happening or prepare my body for the fall.
The fall itself existed in my memory as fragmented sensory flashes rather than coherent narrative. The sudden absence of ground beneath my feet, the lurch of my stomach as gravity took over. The wind screaming past my ears, my arms windmilling uselessly, trying to find balance that no longer existed.
I’d tried to position myself feet first, some instinct reaching for the training that taught me how to land safely from a jump, but my body was rotating wrong, tilted forward, momentum uncontrolled. I’d seen the rocks rushing up, dark brown stone that jutted out from the cliff face about 30 ft above the water, and I’d understood with absolute clarity that I was going to hit them instead of clearing them.
The impact had been a sensation beyond pain, a total system overload that whited out my consciousness instantly. I didn’t remember hitting the water afterward. Didn’t remember the chaos of people screaming and diving in to pull my shattered body out. Didn’t remember the helicopter ride to the trauma center. My first conscious memory after the fall was waking 3 days later to find my body encased in casts and braces and external fixation devices transformed into something mechanical and broken.
The police investigation had moved slowly because the video evidence was simultaneously damning and ambiguous. You could clearly see Garrett push me, but his attorney argued it had been a playful nudge that I’d overreacted to. That jumping off cliffs carried inherent risk everyone present had accepted.
that my injuries resulted from my own poor landing technique rather than his actions. The district attorney’s office had reviewed the footage for days, consulting with prosecutors who specialized in assault cases, trying to determine if Garrett’s shove constituted criminal assault or just reckless behavior in an already dangerous situation.
Detective Kowalsski had been frank with me during his second visit, explaining that pressing charges would be complicated by the context. Everyone there had been engaging in illegal cliff jumping. I’d climbed to the top voluntarily. Garrett could argue he’d been joking around the way friends do in extreme sports environments. The fact that I’d been seriously injured strengthened the case, but also gave his defense attorneys ammunition to claim I was pursuing charges out of anger about consequences rather than genuine criminal intent.
California law required proving that Garrett had intended to cause me harm, not just that his actions had resulted in harm. My athletic career ended before it officially began, terminated by medical reality rather than formal decision. The track coach from San Diego State visited once, bringing flowers and empty encouragement about fighting back and proving doctors wrong. But we both knew the truth.
My right ankle had been reconstructed with plates and screws, the bones so thoroughly destroyed that the surgeon had needed to harvest bone graft from my hip to have enough material to work with. Even in the best case scenario, I’d walk with a permanent limp and chronic pain. Running competitively was impossible. The Olympic trials I’d been training for, the professional career I’d been building toward, the athletic identity that had defined me since middle school, all of it evaporated because Garrett wanted funny content for his channel.
The scholarship I’d earned through years of dedication and sacrifice was gone, replaced by medical bills that insurance would only partially cover. My parents had already liquidated their retirement savings to pay for treatments the insurance company deemed experimental or unnecessary, and we were facing hundreds of thousands in additional debt as my recovery stretched on indefinitely.
Garrett’s response to nearly killing me had been to issue a carefully scripted apology video that his PR team had obviously written, filmed in soft lighting with his expression arranged in calculated remorse. He sat in his expensive apartment wearing a plain black t-shirt instead of his usual branded gear and delivered lines about how he’d never intended anyone to get hurt, how he felt terrible about the accident, how he was taking time away from content creation to reflect on his choices and their consequences. The video was perfectly engineered for damage control, hitting
all the notes that might satisfy casual viewers without actually accepting responsibility or facing real consequences. He never said he’d pushed me. He called it an accident, a tragedy, a lesson learned. His comment section filled with supportive messages from fans who treated the incident as unfortunate chance rather than direct result of his actions.
Some comments even blamed me for not knowing how to land properly, for not being prepared for the jump, for putting myself in that situation. The victim blaming came easily to people who wanted to continue enjoying Garrett’s content without confronting what he’d actually done.
The surgery count reached seven within the first 3 months as doctors worked to stabilize and reconstruct my demolished body. Each operation meant more anesthesia, more recovery time, more setbacks to whatever progress I’d made. Physical therapy started while I was still mostly bedridden. Therapists moving my immobilized limbs through passive range of motion exercises to prevent muscle atrophy and joint stiffness. The pain during those sessions transcended anything I’d experienced in athletic training.
Muscles and bones that had been shattered, screaming in protest at movement. I’d been an athlete who understood pain as temporary and productive, something that meant you were pushing limits and improving capacity. This pain was different, meaningless and destructive. My body breaking down rather than building up.
The therapist, a woman named Ruth, who’d worked with trauma patients for 20 years, told me honestly that my recovery would be the hardest thing I’d ever do, harder than any race or competition, and that I’d need to redefine what success meant because I’d never returned to my previous physical capacity. My girlfriend Ashley visited constantly during the first month, sitting beside my bed and reading to me or playing music or just being present during the endless hours of hospital monotony.
We’d been together for 2 years, met during freshman orientation, and I’d been planning to propose after the Olympic trials concluded. She was studying biochemistry with plans for medical school. Brilliant and driven and patient with my training schedule that consumed most of my time. But the relationship couldn’t survive my transformation from athlete to invalid, I watched her struggle to reconcile the person I’d been with, the broken thing I’d become.
Saw her trying to manufacture optimism about my recovery while grief showed clearly in her eyes. She lasted 6 weeks before having the conversation that I’d been expecting and dreading, telling me tearfully that she couldn’t do this, couldn’t watch me suffer indefinitely. Couldn’t sacrifice her own future to care for someone who might never recover.
The breakup hurt less than it should have because I understood her reasoning completely. I wouldn’t want to date me either in this condition. Wouldn’t want to tie myself to someone whose future consisted of chronic pain and disability and medical debt. Detective Kowalsski returned 3 months after the fall with news about the investigation. His expression suggesting the outcome before he spoke.
The district attorney’s office had declined to prosecute Garrett for assault, determining that they couldn’t prove criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt. The video showed a push, but Garrett’s attorneys had assembled witness statements claiming it looked playful, that Garrett and I had been joking around that the tragedy resulted from an accident in an inherently dangerous situation rather than malicious action.
Kowalsski looked genuinely frustrated delivering this news, saying that he personally believed Garrett had deliberately pushed me as a prank without considering consequences, but personal belief didn’t meet the legal standard for prosecution.
He suggested I pursue civil litigation instead, where the burden of proof was lower, and I could seek damages for medical expenses and lost future earnings. His suggestion felt hollow because civil suits required money for attorneys and years of litigation, resources I didn’t have while drowning in medical debt, and unable to work. Garrett’s channel had actually grown during the controversy.
His subscriber count increasing by half a million as the cliff push video went viral and brought him mainstream attention. He’d monetized the disaster perfectly, creating follow-up content about learning from mistakes and becoming a better person, sponsored videos about safety equipment and emergency preparedness, collaborations with other influencers where he played the role of reformed bad boy who’d learned his lesson.
His income had probably doubled since he’d pushed me. His career benefiting from the exact incident that had destroyed mine. I watched his videos from my hospital bed, studying them with the focus I’d once applied to analyzing race footage, searching for vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
He’d built his entire brand on being untouchable and fearless, on pushing boundaries and escaping consequences. That would be the foundation of his destruction because people who believe they’re invincible make catastrophic mistakes. The first real progress in my recovery came 5 months postfall when I took my first assisted steps using a walker.
my reconstructed ankle screaming in protest but holding my weight. Ruth had tears in her eyes watching me shuffle 10 feet across the physical therapy room and my parents hugged each other like I just won gold at the Olympics. The modest achievement felt simultaneously monumental and devastating, celebrating being able to walk when I should have been preparing for international competition.
My body had atrophied dramatically during months of immobilization. Muscle mass evaporated, leaving me gaunt and weak. The face looking back from mirrors was unrecognizable, aged and hollowed out. eyes holding expression I’d seen in war veterans and abuse survivors. I’d lost 30 pounds of muscle and my right leg was noticeably thinner than my left.
The limb partially dead from nerve damage and reduced circulation. My new normal meant chronic pain medication, mobility aids, regular medical appointments, and the knowledge that I’d never run again. My younger brother, Ethan, had been present at the cliff that day, had witnessed Garrett push me and watched me fall and heard the sound of my body hitting rock.
He was 19 and had idolized Garrett growing up. wanted to be an influencer himself, but the incident had shattered that admiration completely. He visited me constantly during recovery, guilt-ridden and angry, replaying the day obsessively and wondering if he could have done something to prevent it.
He’d been the one to call 911, had held my hand during the helicopter ride while paramedics worked to stabilize me, had given the most detailed statement to police about exactly what he’d witnessed. Ethan told me that Garrett had been laughing immediately after the push had kept filming even as my body hit the rocks had only stopped when people started screaming and the extent of my injuries became clear.
That detail haunted me more than almost anything else. The image of Garrett laughing while I fell to what could easily have been my death, finding entertainment in my terror and pain. The hospital social worker connected me with a proono legal clinic that specialized in helping injury victims navigate civil litigation.
and I met with an attorney named Virginia Reeves who reviewed my case with sharp-eyed attention. She watched the cliff push video repeatedly, taking notes, asking detailed questions about Garrett’s channel and income and previous behavior. Her assessment was direct and unscentimental. You have a strong case for civil assault, battery, and negligence.
The video is compelling evidence, and his continued profiting from content related to the incident strengthens claims about reckless disregard for your welfare. However, civil litigation is expensive and timeconuming, typically taking 2 to 3 years to reach trial. Garrett will hire the best defense attorneys his YouTube money can buy, and they’ll drag this out as long as possible while bleeding you financially. Even if you win, “Collecting a judgment against someone who can hide assets in various accounts and business entities is challenging.
” Her words were discouraging, but she continued with something that caught my attention that said, “There are alternative approaches to pursuing justice that don’t rely on the legal system exclusively. Garrett’s brand is his income source, and brands are vulnerable to public pressure, sponsor boycott, platform policy violations, and audience backlash.
Sometimes the most effective remedy isn’t a courtroom, but destroying someone’s public reputation and economic foundation. I spent the next 4 months researching everything about Garrett’s business operations, his sponsorship deals, his content patterns, his audience demographics, his platform violations that YouTube hadn’t enforced.
I taught myself about social media analytics, brand partnerships, FTC disclosure requirements, copyright law, defamation standards, and the specific terms of service that governed content creator accounts. My body remained broken, but my mind was intact, and I channeled all the focus I’d once applied to athletic training into understanding exactly how Garrett’s empire functioned and where its structural weaknesses existed.
He’d built his success on a foundation of rulebreaking and boundary pushing, consistently violating platform policies that prohibited dangerous pranks and harmful content. YouTube’s enforcement had been inconsistent, often ignoring violations by creators with large audiences who drove significant ad revenue.
But platforms responded to sustained pressure campaigns, especially when mainstream media coverage made ignoring violations publicly embarrassing. Ethan became my research partner and eventual co-conspirator, using his insider knowledge of influencer culture to identify useful information. He’d maintained surface level friendship with Garrett, attending occasional gatherings and staying connected on social media.
But his loyalty had shifted completely toward helping me pursue accountability. Through Ethan, I learned that Garrett had dozens of videos featuring dangerous pranks and illegal activities that clearly violated YouTube’s policies, but had never been flagged by automated systems or reviewed by human moderators.
Ethan documented everything methodically, creating spreadsheets that cataloged each violation with timestamps and policy citations. We identified videos showing trespassing, assault, reckless endangerment, harassment, and activities that had resulted in property damage or injuries to others. The cliff push wasn’t an isolated incident, but part of a pattern that Garrett had profited from for years, while YouTube had looked the other way because his content generated millions in ad revenue.
The sponsorship angle provided another vulnerability. Garrett had brand deals with an energy drink company, an electronics manufacturer, a clothing line, and several smaller companies that paid him for product placement and promotional content. Most of these brands had social responsibility policies, claiming they wouldn’t partner with creators who promoted harmful behavior.
But they’d never investigated whether Garrett’s content violated those stated values. Ethan helped me compile highlight reels showing Garrett’s most egregious violations alongside screenshots of his sponsorship posts, creating packages that demonstrated clear contradiction between brand values and brand partnerships.
We identified the marketing executives and brand managers responsible for these deals. Researching their professional backgrounds and public statements about ethics and responsibility. These were people whose careers could be damaged by association with someone who’d nearly killed his cousin for YouTube views if that association was made public and unavoidable.
Virginia Reeves agreed to send legal demand letters to Garrett’s major sponsors, carefully worded to avoid defamation claims while making clear that their continued association with him constituted implicit endorsement of dangerous content that had resulted in severe injury. The letters cited specific videos, included medical documentation of my injuries, and requested that brands terminate their partnerships with Garrett and issue public statements about their commitment to safety and responsibility.
Virginia explained that most companies would ignore such letters initially, but they created paper trail proving the brands had been informed of Garrett’s conduct, which would be valuable if media coverage eventually forced their hand. We sent the letters to eight companies simultaneously, timing the delivery to create maximum coordination and pressure.
Then we waited to see who would respond and who would try to ignore the problem. The first sponsor to terminate Garrett’s deal was the clothing company, a streetear brand called Urban Frontier that marketed itself to young progressive consumers. Their marketing director responded within 48 hours, thanking Virginia for bringing the matter to their attention and confirming that they’d be ending their partnership with Garrett immediately and reviewing their creator vetting processes.
The decision was probably driven more by risk assessment than ethics. The brand recognizing that their customer base wouldn’t tolerate association with someone who’d seriously injured a family member for content. Garrett posted about the terminated deal on Twitter, framing it as cancel culture and mob mentality, claiming brands were abandoning him based on false accusations and misrepresented footage.
His defensive response only drew more attention to the situation, and his followers started asking questions about what he’d done to lose the sponsorship. That opened the door for a broader conversation about his content history and the cliff push incident that many of his newer subscribers weren’t aware of. Ethan had been documenting Garrett’s mansion renovations through social media posts, and we noticed something interesting about the timing and financing. Garrett had purchased a $2.
1 million house in the Hollywood Hills 3 months after pushing me off the cliff during the exact period when his channel had experienced massive growth from controversy. The house purchase had been financed through an LLC that Garrett controlled, probably for tax purposes and liability protection, but the documentation was public record.
Virginia helped me understand that the purchase timing and financing structure could be valuable evidence in civil litigation, demonstrating that Garrett had profited directly from the incident that had destroyed my life. We gathered property records, mortgage documents, and business registration filings, building a comprehensive picture of Garrett’s financial situation and asset holdings.
This information would be crucial for ensuring any eventual judgment could actually be collected rather than disappeared into protected accounts. The energy drink company terminated Garrett’s sponsorship 2 weeks after the clothing brand, issuing a corporate statement about their commitment to promoting positive athletic culture and their zero tolerance policy for content that endangered participants.
The statement was clearly damage control drafted by legal and PR teams, but it represented the second major brand publicly distancing itself from Garrett. His remaining sponsors started getting nervous. According to Ethan’s intelligence from the influencer community, brand managers were fielding questions from executives about due diligence failures, asking why Garrett had been signed despite his history of dangerous content.
The contracts he’d already signed remained valid, but companies were looking for exit clauses and violation provisions that might allow early termination. Garrett’s business manager reached out to Virginia with a settlement offer, suggesting that Garrett would pay my medical expenses in exchange for me signing a non-disclosure agreement and ceasing all efforts to damage his brand partnerships.
The offer was insultingly low, covering maybe 20% of my actual medical costs, and the NDA was structured to prevent me from ever discussing the Cliff Push incident publicly. Virginia declined on my behalf and informed them we’d be pursuing full civil litigation.
I filed the civil suit 9 months after the fall with Virginia representing me through her clinic’s pro bono program and contingency arrangement. The complaint detailed Garrett’s assault, the extent of my injuries, my medical expenses, my lost athletic career and future earnings, and the emotional distress caused by his actions and subsequent public statements minimizing his responsibility.
We included claims for punitive damages, arguing that Garrett’s conduct had been so egregious and his response so callous that he deserved punishment beyond simple compensation. The filing immediately generated media coverage with several outlets running stories about the influencer who’d pushed his cousin off a cliff and then bought a mansion with revenue from the viral footage.
The narrative was compelling and easily understandable, fitting neatly into existing concerns about toxic social media culture and the dangers of extreme content. Garrett’s remaining sponsors received dozens of negative tweets and emails from consumers threatening boycots, and his YouTube comment sections filled with people demanding accountability. YouTube’s first response was predictably inadequate.
A boilerplate statement about their commitment to creator safety and community guidelines. But sustained pressure from advocacy groups focused on platform accountability made ignoring the situation increasingly untenable. A coalition of organizations that monitored dangerous content, sent formal letters to YouTube’s executive leadership, citing specific videos that violated policies and demanding enforcement action.
Tech journalists wrote articles about YouTube’s inconsistent moderation practices, using Garrett as a case study of how the platform allowed harmful creators to profit when they generated sufficient revenue. The negative press coverage put YouTube in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between protecting a revenue generating creator and maintaining their public commitments to safety.
Virginia had been coordinating with these advocacy groups, providing them with documentation and context that made their pressure campaigns more effective. The strategy was working slowly applying pressure from multiple angles until YouTube’s costbenefit calculation shifted. Garrett responded to the civil suit by counter suing me for defamation and torchious interference with business relationships, claiming that I was deliberately destroying his reputation with false accusations and malicious intent. His attorneys filed a motion
seeking damages for lost sponsorship income, arguing that my legal threats to his brand partners constituted improper interference with valid contracts. The counter suit was obviously strategic rather than substantive, designed to intimidate me and create financial pressure through expensive litigation.
Virginia had expected this response and was prepared for it. She filed an anti-slap motion arguing that Garrett’s defamation claims targeted protected speech related to matters of public concern, that everything I’d said about him was demonstrabably true, and that his countersuit was frivolous retaliation for my legitimate civil claims.
California’s anti-slap statute allowed us to recover attorney fees if we prevailed, which would make Garrett’s strategy backfire extensively. The motion created procedural complications that delayed his countersuit while our primary lawsuit continued advancing. Physical therapy continued throughout all of this legal maneuvering.
My body slowly adapting to its new limitations and capabilities. I’d graduated from walker to cane to walking unassisted with pronounced limp. My reconstructed ankle never quite achieving full range of motion or strength. The chronic pain had become my constant companion, managed through medication and coping strategies, but never fully absent.
Ruth had been honest about my prognosis from the beginning, and her predictions had proven accurate. I’d reached maximum medical improvement after 18 months of intensive rehabilitation, meaning further recovery was unlikely, and my current state was essentially permanent. I could walk, drive, perform basic daily activities with modifications, but running remained impossible, and standing for extended periods caused severe pain.
The track athlete I’d been was gone permanently, replaced by a disabled person learning to build identity around something other than physical capability. YouTube finally took action 18 months after the cliff push, issuing a strike against Garrett’s channel for violating community guidelines related to dangerous challenges and pranks.
The strike meant he couldn’t upload new content for one week and his channel was placed under enhanced review. It was a minimal consequence given years of violations, but it represented the first time YouTube had officially acknowledged that Garrett’s content was problematic. The strike triggered a clause in his remaining sponsorship contracts, allowing brands to terminate immediately if a creator’s channel faced platform enforcement action.
Three more sponsors dropped him within days, and his monthly income decreased by approximately 60% according to industry analysts who tracked influencer earnings. Garrett posted a long rant about censorship and corporate cowardice, positioning himself as a victim of coordinated attack by people who couldn’t handle edgy content. But his defensive narrative was losing effectiveness as more people learned the details about what he’d actually done to me.
The civil trial was scheduled for two years after the incident, delayed by Garrett’s procedural maneuvers, and court backlogs. During discovery, Virginia obtained access to Garrett’s business records, financial statements, and communications related to the cliff dive video. The documents revealed details that strengthened our case significantly.
Garrett had specifically planned to push someone off the cliff as his climactic stunt, discussing the idea with his videographer in emails weeks before the event. He’d chosen me as the target because I was family and would be less likely to immediately retaliate, and because my athletic background would make the fall look more dramatic and less like victimizing someone helpless.
The emails demonstrated clear premeditation, directly contradicting his public statements about the push being spontaneous playfulness. Even more damning, his analytics showed the Cliff Push video had generated over $40,000 in ad revenue during its first month online, and he’d received a bonus from YouTube for driving exceptional engagement. He’d literally been paid for nearly killing me.
The discovery documents also revealed that Garrett had consulted with an attorney immediately after the incident, receiving advice about how to minimize legal liability through careful public statements and narrative control. His apology video had been scripted by a crisis management PR firm specializing in helping influencers survive scandals.
Every aspect of his response had been calculated for legal protection and reputation management rather than genuine remorse. Virginia used these revelations effectively in settlement negotiations, making clear that trial would expose Garrett’s calculated manipulation of public perception and his profit from my injuries. His attorneys started making more serious settlement offers.
Recognizing that the documentary evidence would be devastating to his defense at trial, they proposed paying 1.5 million to resolve all claims, with half going to medical expenses and future care, and half representing damages for lost career and suffering. I rejected the settlement because money alone felt insufficient given what Garrett had taken from me and how he’d responded.
Virginia understood my position and continued preparing for trial, building a case designed not just to win damages, but to expose Garrett’s conduct so thoroughly that his public reputation and career would be destroyed regardless of the verdict. We subpoenaed witnesses from the cliff dive event, compelling testimony from people who’d been part of Garrett’s circle and had remained silent or supportive during his initial PR response.
Several of these witnesses had since distanced themselves from Garrett as his behavior became more erratic and his content more dangerous, and they were willing to testify about his pattern of putting people at risk for views. Ethan had maintained relationships with some of these people and helped Virginia identify who would be cooperative versus hostile witnesses.
The trial began on a Monday morning in civil court with Virginia delivering an opening statement that played the cliff push video within the first 2 minutes and let the footage speak for itself. She walked the jury through my injuries with medical precision, showed photographs of my destroyed ankle and shattered pelvis, displayed before and after pictures of my athletic career versus my current limitations.
Then she introduced the emails showing premeditation and the financial records showing profit, building a narrative where Garrett had deliberately sacrificed my body and future for content that made him wealthy. His attorney tried arguing contributo negligence, claiming I’d voluntarily participated in an inherently dangerous activity and bore partial responsibility for my injuries. But Virginia’s cross-examination of witnesses established clearly that I’d been trying to back out when Garrett pushed me. That
I hadn’t consented to being shoved off the cliff, that the danger was created by his deliberate actions rather than the inherent risk of cliff diving. Garrett testified in his own defense, probably against his attorney’s advice, unable to resist the opportunity to control his narrative before an audience.
His testimony was disaster for his case, revealing the same narcissistic arrogance that had characterized his YouTube content. He repeatedly minimized my injuries, suggested I was exaggerating for sympathy, claimed my athletic career had been marginal anyway and wouldn’t have succeeded.
He described pushing me as a joke that I’d overreacted to, saying real athletes wouldn’t have been bothered by a simple shove. Virginia’s cross-examination methodically destroyed his credibility, contrasting his courtroom testimony with his video content showing similar dangerous pranks, pointing out inconsistencies between his statements to police and his later public comments, forcing him to admit that he’d profited enormously from the cliff push video.
By the time she finished questioning him, several jurors were visibly angry, and Garrett had revealed himself as exactly the callous narcissist the evidence suggested. Medical experts testified about the permanent nature of my injuries and the ongoing costs I’d face for lifelong treatment and pain management. An economist calculated my lost earning potential, comparing what I likely would have made as a professional athlete and eventual coach or trainer against my current limited employment options. The total came to approximately $3.
2 $2 million in lost lifetime earnings, not including medical expenses that were estimated at another $800,000 over my expected lifespan. Virginia presented evidence that Garrett’s net worth exceeded $5 million from his YouTube career, making him easily capable of paying substantial damages.
She argued for punitive damages equal to his net worth, essentially requesting that the jury strip him of everything he’d gained from the career built on dangerous content. Her closing argument connected the specific facts of my case to the broader pattern of Garrett’s conduct and the social media incentive structure that rewarded creators for harming others.
She asked the jury to send a message that people couldn’t sacrifice others for views and profit without consequences. The jury deliberated for 6 hours before returning their verdict. Liable on all counts, $4.8 million in compensatory damages and $4.5 million in punitive damages. The total judgment of $9.
3 million exceeded even Virginia’s most optimistic projections and represented one of the largest personal injury verdicts against a social media creator. Garrett’s face went pale as the verdict was read, his attorney immediately indicating they’d appeal, but appeals rarely succeeded in cases with such clear evidence and properly instructed juries.
Virginia explained that collecting the judgment would still be challenging given Garrett’s asset protection strategies. But the verdict was public record and would follow him permanently, making it difficult to hide assets or rebuild his career. More importantly, the size of the judgment sent the exact message she’d hoped for about accountability and consequences.
YouTube terminated Garrett’s channel permanently 3 days after the verdict, citing repeated violations of community guidelines and the civil court’s findings about his pattern of dangerous content. His 3 million subscribers and years of uploaded videos disappeared overnight. His primary income source eliminated completely.
The termination was unprecedented for a creator his size and signaled that YouTube was finally taking serious action against dangerous content creators. Other platforms followed suit with Instagram and Tik Tok suspending his accounts based on the same conduct. Garrett’s entire social media presence vanished within a week. His brand destroyed and his ability to monetize online content eliminated.
He posted statements on Twitter about censorship and cancel culture. But without his YouTube audience, his reach was minimal and his complaints fell on unsympathetic ears. The collection process for the judgment began immediately with Virginia filing claims against Garrett’s known assets, including his Hollywood Hills house, his vehicles, his business bank accounts, and his investment portfolios.
California law allowed significant portions of judgment debtor income to be garnished, and Garrett’s remaining revenue sources were identified and targeted. He tried filing for bankruptcy, but Virginia argued successfully that damages from intentional tors couldn’t be discharged in bankruptcy, meaning the judgment would survive any bankruptcy proceeding.
Garrett was financially destroyed, facing wage garnishments for decades, and unable to rebuild the wealth he’d accumulated through dangerous content. His career was over, his reputation ruined, his future limited by the permanent public record of what he’d done and what it had cost him.
I used the initial settlement payments to cover outstanding medical debts, and establish a trust fund for future care needs, finally relieving my parents of the financial burden they’d been carrying. The remaining funds allowed me to enroll in a graduate program in sports medicine, channeling my athletic knowledge into a different career path that didn’t require physical capability.
I’d never be the Olympic athlete I’d trained to become, but I could help other athletes avoid injuries and recover from setbacks. Ruth connected me with opportunities to work with adaptive athletes and disabled competitors, communities where my experience with catastrophic injury and long recovery gave me credibility and insight. My life would never be what I’d planned before Garrett pushed me off that cliff.
But I’d built something new from the wreckage, something that felt meaningful and sustainable rather than stolen and temporary. Ethan started his own YouTube channel documenting his journey away from influencer culture, creating educational content about the dark side of social media fame and the real cost of viral moments.
His channel grew steadily based on authenticity rather than stunts, attracting an audience tired of dangerous content and hungry for honest perspectives. He interviewed other people who’d been harmed by influencer pranks and platform negligence, building a community focused on accountability and reform. His content felt like redemption for having been part of Garrett’s world, using the same medium that had nearly killed me to push for better standards and consequences.
We collaborated occasionally with me appearing in videos about the long-term reality of catastrophic injuries and the inadequacy of legal systems designed before social media existed. Garrett moved to Florida after losing everything, working construction jobs under the table to avoid wage garnishments, living in a small apartment that looked nothing like his former mansion.
Ethan had maintained minimal surveillance of Garrett’s situation, not out of sympathy, but to ensure he couldn’t hide assets or rebuild his platform under different names. Garrett occasionally tried launching new social media accounts using pseudonyms, but his distinctive appearance and voice made him recognizable, and accounts were usually identified and reported within days. His attempts to return to content creation failed repeatedly.
His reputation preceding him and preventing any possibility of regaining his previous success. He destroyed his own life through the same reckless disregard that had destroyed mine. The difference being that his destruction was consequence rather than victimization. 2 years after the verdict, I walked my girlfriend Morgan down the beach near San Diego.
My limp pronounced, but my pace steady enough to enjoy the sunset and her company. She was a physical therapist I’d met during my graduate program, someone who understood disability and chronic pain. as professional expertise rather than burden. We’d built something real together based on who I actually was rather than who I’d planned to become.
Garrett’s shadow had finally receded enough that I could envision a future defined by what I’d built rather than what I’d lost. Justice had been slow and incomplete, but it had arrived eventually, delivered through courtrooms and platform policies and public accountability rather than the revenge I’d imagined in my hospital bed.
If you enjoyed this, you’ll definitely want to see the next ones, too. So, like now and let me know your take in the comments.