NEED TO KNOW
SeaWorld Orlando has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit from a guest who claims they suffered permanent injuries after getting hit in the face by a “duck” while riding one of the park’s coastersAfter investigating the incident, SeaWorld’s attorneys claim the guest, Hillary Martin, was not hit by a duck, but instead by a migratory Snowy EgretThe type of bird might hold the key to the fate of the legal claim
A specific type of water foul might be the critical factor in an unusual theme park lawsuit.
A SeaWorld Orlando guest filed a complaint against the park claiming she suffered serious injuries after getting hit in the face by a duck while riding one of the park’s main attractions. However, in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, SeaWorld argues she was never hit by a duck, instead it was a Snowy Egret.
According to a complaint filed on Oct. 28, in Orange County, Fla., a park visitor named Hillary Martin visited the Orlando theme park on March 24 as a “business invitee.” During her visit, she rode the Mako roller coaster when, she claims, “a duck flew into the path of the roller coaster and struck [her] in the face.”
The complaint alleges that SeaWorld created a “zone of danger for bird strikes” by placing the high speed attraction near a body of water.
Martin is suing the park on one count of liability, seeking more than $50,000 in damages for permanent injury, disability, physical impairment and loss of earning power.
In a motion to dismiss the complaint, filed by SeaWorld Orlando’s attorneys on Nov. 19, the park says it investigated the incident and claim she did not get hit by a duck lured by the nearby body of water but instead, “encountered a wild migratory Snowy Egret,” a bird found along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
“This matter does not and has never involved a duck,” SeaWorld attorneys allege.
They added that her allegations “are no longer true or factual, nor are such allegations actionable against Sea World.”
“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,” they claim.
They further allege that Martin “refused medical transportation” after the incident because she “wanted to keep going in the park and did not want to be held up any longer.” They claim she did not seek treatment until the day after her visit.
Mako Roller Coaster at SeaWorld Orlando.
Alamy
The lawyers also argue that Martin’s claims whereby the park created a “zone of danger” by placing the coaster next to a body of water are “speculative” and lacking in legal basis.
“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,” they claim.
“The four corners of Martin’s complaint demonstrate only an unfortunate incident occurred, not a compensable harm,” attorneys wrote.
Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE’s free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
Martin’s attorney did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.
The motion will be heard at an initial conference scheduled for Dec. 8.