SeaWorld says the woman suing for being hit by a duck wasn't actually hit by a duck
SeaWorld says it was, in fact, a Snowy Egret that flew into the coaster's path. The theme park is seeking the lawsuit's dismissal
Courtesy: SeaWorld Orlando
While a Florida woman insists she was hit in the face by a duck while riding a roller coaster at SeaWorld Orlando (and is seeking $60,000 in damages for the incident), the theme park says the case should be thrown out. Oh, and it wasn't a duck either, by the way, attorneys added.
Suggested Reading
Hillary Martin, who lives in Florida's Orange County (which includes Orlando), claims she was riding the Mako roller coaster, an extreme ride that reaches 200 feet in the air and boasts maximum speeds of 73 mph, when a duck allegedly flew in the coaster's path, hitting her in the face and knocking her unconscious and causing injuries. In a court filing, however, SeaWorld says it was, in fact, a Snowy Egret that flew into the coaster's path.
Related Content
“This matter does not and has never involved a duck,” SeaWorld’s attorney wrote.
Notwithstanding what type of fowl was involved, the park's attorneys are asking the judge overseeing the case to dismiss it, saying it has no legal responsibility for the behaviors of birds that fly in or near the park. A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 8.
In her suit, Martin claimed to have suffered permanent injuries, pain and suffering (both physical and mental), the loss of ability (and capacity) to lead and enjoy a normal life, the aggravation of an existing condition, and more. SeaWorld attorneys said she had refused medical treatment on the scene, though, because she didn’t want to take time away from the park. She received treatment the next day.
Martin's suit also alleged the theme park "created a zone of danger for bird strikes" with the coaster's height and by positioning it "over or near" a body of water that was "within the known territory of waterfowls in the area."
SeaWorld attorneys rejected that argument.
“The duck’s presence in the air, away from the alleged water source, negates any plausible relationship between SeaWorld’s premises and Plaintiff’s alleged injury,” the park's response to the suit wrote. “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 SeaWorld’s legal responsibility.”