CRBC News
Politics
Conflict
Security
Economy
Science
Technology
Environment
Health
Culture
Society
Lifestyle
Society

SeaWorld: Roller‑Coaster Face Strike Caused By Snowy Egret, Not A Duck — Bird ID Could Decide Lawsuit

07:39 AM, 12/05/2025
SeaWorld: Roller‑Coaster Face Strike Caused By Snowy Egret, Not A Duck — Bird ID Could Decide Lawsuit

SeaWorld Orlando moved to dismiss a lawsuit in which a guest, Hillary Martin, says she was struck in the face by a bird while riding the Mako roller coaster on March 24. Martin sued Oct. 28 seeking more than $50,000 for alleged permanent injuries, claiming a duck hit her. In a Nov. 19 filing SeaWorld says its investigation identified the bird as a wild Snowy Egret and argues Florida law does not impose liability for wild animals the park did not introduce or harbor. The park also disputes a "zone of danger" theory and notes Martin initially refused on‑site medical transport; a court conference is set for Dec. 8.

SeaWorld Says Bird That Struck Guest Was A Snowy Egret, Not A Duck

SeaWorld Orlando has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit from a guest who says she suffered permanent injuries after being struck in the face by a bird while riding the Mako roller coaster.

The visitor, identified in court filings as Hillary Martin, filed a complaint on Oct. 28 in Orange County, Florida, seeking more than $50,000 in damages for alleged permanent injury, disability, physical impairment and loss of earning power. Martin says the incident occurred on March 24 when "a duck flew into the path of the roller coaster and struck [her] in the face," according to the complaint.

Park Investigation Identifies A Different Bird

In a motion to dismiss filed Nov. 19, SeaWorld's attorneys say the park investigated and concluded the bird was not a duck but a wild, migratory Snowy Egret — a wading bird commonly found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The filing states, "This matter does not and has never involved a duck," and contends Martin's duck allegation is "no longer true or factual."

SeaWorld's Legal Argument

SeaWorld argues that under Florida law the park cannot be held liable for the actions of a wild animal unless the landowner brought the animal onto the premises, harbored it, or introduced it to the area. The park also disputes the claim that siting a high‑speed coaster next to a body of water created a legally actionable "zone of danger" for bird strikes, calling that theory speculative.

SeaWorld's filing: "The four corners of Martin's complaint demonstrate only an unfortunate incident occurred, not a compensable harm."

Medical Response And Case Status

According to SeaWorld's filing, Martin refused on‑site medical transportation because she wanted to continue in the park and did not seek medical treatment until the following day. Martin's attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The court has scheduled an initial conference on the motion to dismiss for Dec. 8.

Why The Bird Species Matters

The central factual dispute — whether a domesticated or otherwise controlled bird (like a duck that could be deemed harbored) versus a wild migratory Snowy Egret caused the injury — could be decisive under Florida premises‑liability law. If the bird is a wild animal with no connection to SeaWorld, the park argues it owes no legal responsibility for the bird's actions.

Similar Articles

Trending