ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. – SeaWorld Orlando is seeking to have a lawsuit dismissed that was filed by a guest alleging an unusual injury while on a roller coaster. The guest, Hillary Martin, claims she suffered injuries in March when a bird struck her while she was aboard the Mako coaster. Her legal action seeks over $50,000 in damages for what she describes as permanent injuries.
Martin’s lawsuit argues that SeaWorld Orlando endangered guests by situating the roller coaster near a body of water, which she believes increases the likelihood of bird strikes due to the ride’s high speeds. She asserts this proximity creates a “zone of danger” for riders.
Responding to the lawsuit, SeaWorld Orlando filed a motion on November 19 to dismiss the case, clarifying the details of the incident. Contrary to Martin’s initial claim of a duck being involved, SeaWorld contends that the bird involved was actually a wild migratory snowy egret.
“This matter does not and has never involved a duck,” the motion asserted. SeaWorld’s legal team insists that since Martin’s claim of encountering a “duck” is incorrect, the allegations do not hold ground against the theme park.
The case highlights a curious intersection of wildlife and thrill rides, raising questions about the responsibilities of amusement parks in managing natural hazards.
“This matter does not and has never involved a duck,” the motion states. “Accordingly, Martin’s allegations that she encountered a ‘duck’ while experiencing Sea World’s Mako coaster are no longer true or factual, nor are such allegations actionable against Sea World.”
SeaWorld Orlando further argued that Martin allegedly refused day-of medical transport — “saying that she wanted to keep going in the park and did not want to be held up any longer,” the motion states — and waited until the next day before seeking medical treatment.
SeaWorld Orlando goes on to say it could still “assume (Martin’s) allegations that she encountered a ‘duck’ are true,” largely because “Florida law simply does not create legal responsibility for a wild animal’s actions, unless the premises owner has brought the wild animal into its possession, harbored the animal, or actually introduced the animal to the locality.”
Responding to Martin’s claim that SeaWorld Orlando created a “zone of danger” with Mako, the theme park argues it did not fail to keep the premises under control nor fail to warn of a condition because “no duty is owed to Martin for the actions of a wild and migratory animal,” adding she makes no mention that the duck was “visible, observable, or known to Sea World” before the coaster set off.
16. (…) The Plaintiff’s Complaint attempts to turn general risk into specific foreseeability without the legal ability to do so.
17. Martin’s Complaint simply cannot support a reasonable inference on its face that the presence of a body of water and a coaster created a foreseeable “zone of risk” encompassing the random flight of a wild, migratory “duck” far removed from that location. The duck’s presence in the air, away from the alleged water source, negates any plausible relationship between Sea World’s premises and Plaintiff’s alleged injury. Martin’s event, by its own description, could have occurred regardless of the presence or absence of any body of water within the park and it still would not have been Sea World’s legal responsibility.
(…)
28. (…) The presence of water “near” the coaster does not render a random aerial bird strike reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law.
“Sea World’s motion to dismiss for Martin’s failure to state a legally supported cause of action” pgs. 7, 10, 11 (excerpts)
SeaWorld Orlando’s motion asks that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice, as well as that Martin gets the bill.
The request will be heard in court on Monday, Dec. 8.
[VIDEO: Justice Department probes SeaWorld, Busch Gardens]
Copyright 2025 by WKMG ClickOrlando – All rights reserved.
