Roller Coaster Bird Strike: Who’s at Fault?

A bizarre “duck versus egret” lawsuit at SeaWorld is now raising serious questions about personal responsibility and corporate liability.

Story Snapshot

A Florida woman sues SeaWorld after a bird hits her on the high‑speed Mako roller coaster, claiming she was knocked unconscious and injured.
Media first framed the story as a “duck” incident, but SeaWorld’s court filing insists the bird was a snowy egret and says the species distinction matters legally.
The key legal fight is whether placing a coaster near water where birds gather created a negligent “zone of risk” or whether a wild bird strike is simply an unforeseeable act of nature.
The case could shape how far theme parks and other venues must go to protect guests from wildlife, with wider consequences for costs, warnings, and personal responsibility expectations.

How a quirky bird strike became a serious lawsuit

Local and national reports recount that Florida guest Hillary Martin says she was riding the Mako roller coaster at SeaWorld Orlando earlier in 2025 when a bird slammed into her head, allegedly knocking her out and leading to later medical treatment. Coverage initially went viral by describing the story as a woman being hit by a “duck” on a coaster, blending amusement with alarm over theme‑park safety and sparking questions about how such a collision could occur on a modern, engineered thrill ride.

This attention‑grabbing framing helped fuel Martin’s negligence lawsuit, which claims SeaWorld created an unsafe “zone of risk” by placing a high‑speed coaster near water where birds commonly congregate.

Watch:

SeaWorld pushes back with “egret, not duck” defense

SeaWorld’s formal response, filed in late 2025, sharply contests both the popular storyline and the legal theory, stressing that “this matter has never involved a duck” and that its investigation concluded Martin was hit by a snowy egret instead. The company argues that the bird was flying in the air away from the alleged water source, which it says breaks any direct causal link between the nearby body of water and the moment of impact, undermining the idea that lake‑adjacent ride design itself created the danger. Lawyers for the park frame the event as a freak encounter with a truly wild animal, not a controllable feature of the attraction, and ask the court to dismiss the case outright.

Woman suing SeaWorld for being hit with a duck wasn't hit by a duck, says theme park: Florida resident is seeking $60,000 in damages. The park's attorneys say a) it wasn't a duck and b) the case should be dismissed. https://t.co/Vmk8VIG2Ie pic.twitter.com/CsGsISfUoV

— Quartz (@qz) December 4, 2025

Wild animals, personal responsibility, and corporate duty

Longstanding tort principles treat free‑ranging wild animals, known in Latin as ferae naturae, as part of the natural environment rather than as hazards that businesses automatically guarantee against in every circumstance. Courts often ask whether a landowner actively attracted animals, created an artificial condition that increased risk beyond what nature alone presents, or ignored a recurring, well‑documented pattern of similar incidents that would have put a reasonable operator on clear notice. Without such evidence, judges have frequently declined to turn every random wildlife encounter into a winning negligence claim.

What this means for guests, parks, and costs

For Martin, the case is about recovering medical expenses, potential lost wages, and damages for pain and suffering, along with a finding that SeaWorld’s design decisions failed to adequately protect her as an invited guest. For SeaWorld, the stakes include not only potential payouts but also reputational damage in an industry already under a microscope for animal‑related controversies and safety issues, with the added PR challenge of correcting a “duck” narrative they say misrepresents what actually happened on the ride.
If courts accept SeaWorld’s view that a wild bird suddenly flying overhead is too remote and unpredictable to justify liability, other parks may gain clearer protection against similar claims, limiting the need for extensive construction changes or new layers of warnings.