ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. – SeaWorld Orlando has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed in October by a guest who claimed she was maimed by a duck while riding a roller coaster earlier this year.
The rider, Hillary Martin, claims she was injured by a duck while riding Mako in March, with her lawsuit stating she suffered permanent injuries and seeks more than $50,000 in damages
Martin’s lawsuit accuses SeaWorld Orlando of “creating a zone of danger” due to Mako’s speed and close proximity to a body of water, what she claims increased the risk of bird strikes.
[WATCH BELOW: Rider maimed by duck on roller coaster at SeaWorld Orlando, lawsuit says]
SeaWorld Orlando responded within several weeks, filing a motion to dismiss Martin’s lawsuit on Nov. 19, stating that Martin actually encountered a wild migratory snowy egret, not a duck.
“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.
[EXCLUSIVE: Become a News 6 Insider (it’s FREE) | PINIT! Share your photos]
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]
In the Loop: Theme Park Scoops
More Stories Like This In Our Email Newsletter
Copyright 2025 by WKMG ClickOrlando – All rights reserved.