Perth woman Wendy Ann Rankilor sues City of Darwin after slipping on ’slippery’ street

The 69-year-old says she ‘continued to receive a further handful (no pun intended) of hand therapy sessions’ up to 18 months after slipping and falling as she crossed the wet road in Darwin in 2020.

Wendy Ann Rankilor says she slipped and fell while crossing a wet street in Darwin in 2020. Picture: Glenn Campbell

A West Australian woman is suing the City of Darwin for negligence after she says she fell and “severely broke my left wrist” while crossing a wet Darwin street in 2020.

Wendy Ann Rankilor filed the suit, which also names Royal Darwin Hospital as a defendant, in the NT Supreme Court following the incident on November 4.

In her statement of claim, the 69-year-old says she was crossing the road at 10.15am on her way to buy food when the injury occurred.

She claims she attended RDH where she underwent surgery on November 10 and had a plate and screws inserted before travelling to the Gold Coast for further treatment and hand therapy.

By December 23, Ms Rankilor claims she still “could not put my thumb into an upward position” and had to have a second operation before contacting the Darwin council in January via email and “a lengthy telephone call”.

“City of Darwin gave me a reference number … and that they had lodged a follow up with their corporate services team, I did not hear back,” the statement of claim reads.

“I continued to receive a further handful (no pun intended) of hand therapy sessions (at my own expense).

“My left wrist (dominant) is approximately 30 per cent weaker than my right wrist.

“It was my intention to (return to) Perth in December 2020, instead I had to remain on the Gold Coast, Queensland for a further six months.”

In its defence, the council denied its workers had “just finished washing the road”, claiming its street sweepers operated between 4am and 7am and “emitted minimal water for dust suppression”.

The City of Darwin has argued Ms Rankilor failed to ‘keep a proper look out’ while crossing the road. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

“(The council) denies the allegations that the road was wet from having been washed by the second defendant because street sweeping was completed more than three hours prior to the incident … and any residual wetness from the street sweeping would have dried,” it reads.

“No other form of cleaning, other than street sweeping, was performed on the road by representatives of the second defendant on the relevant day.

The council claims any slipperiness or debris on the road “were not risks created by the second defendant” and its duty of care “did not extend to constant and/or intermittent inspection of the road”.

It says it was “reasonably foreseeable” that a pedestrian would encounter wet roads, “whether that be as a result of inclement weather or other liquids”, along with other imperfections including debris.

It claims Ms Rankilor had a duty “to take reasonable steps to protect her own safety”, and failed to “keep a proper look out” and “exercise a reasonable degree of caution”.

“The presence of any liquid on the road surface did not require signage where such factors are everyday occurrences that a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would encounter and ought to overcome by the exercise of reasonable care,” it reads.

RDH is yet to file a defence.