IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF VERONA
Lord and Lady Montague and
Lord and Lady Capulet,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
Friar Laurence,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2016-1
Following the funerals and burials of Romeo and Juliet, the Montagues and Capulets sought
ways to honor the memories of their children and to make peace for the first time in generations.
They immediately began planning for and trying to finance Juliet’s “statue of pure gold”
promised by Lord Montague and the rich statue of Romeo promised by Lord Capulet. To that
end, they jointly filed a wrongful death suit against Friar Laurence alleging that his actions and
inactions were the proximate cause of the untimely and tragic deaths of both Romeo and Juliet.
(Injured family members are proper plaintiffs for wrongful death cases in Verona and Friar
Laurence’s employment contract required the Church to indemnify him for his actions).
In particular, the lawsuit contended that Friar Laurence engaged in a number of negligent,
reckless and intentional acts and should have been reasonably aware of the risks of his actions.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Friar Laurence: (1) should have devised far better ways to
delay the wedding of Juliet and Paris (e.g., by declaring a thirty day period of mourning for
Tybalt) which would have allowed time for a reconciliation with Romeo; (2) should not have
administered a restricted substance to Juliet or, at a minimum, used a less powerful dose of the
sleeping medicine to allow for a margin of error to assure Juliet would awaken before Romeo’s
arrival; (3) should have used a less fallible means of sending word of his plan to Romeo or
should have had a back-up plan (e.g., a guard at the vault); (4) should have foreseen Romeo’s
reaction to Juliet’s supposed death, if the potion went awry; and (5) should have known how
Juliet would react to the death of her young husband and not left her alone with his body. All of
these actions, the accusers allege, were beneath the reasonable duty of care for anyone,
especially a priest.
Friar Laurence pled in defense that the enmity between the Montagues and Capulets caused these
tragic deaths. He argued that his actions were neither negligent nor wrongful, but were intended
to prevent Romeo and Juliet from carrying out their separately stated intentions of committing
suicide, a grievous sin in the eyes of the Church. Friar Laurence stated that it was unreasonable
pressure and expectations created by the Montague and Capulet families and their mutual
animosity that forced Romeo and Juliet to take drastic actions. He also stated his motives were
not only to allow young adults with their own power of consent to validate their love in the eyes
of heaven, but also to merge the two families and bring peace to the community– all goals well
within his official duties and the teachings of the Church. Friar Laurence defended himself
further by arguing that it was his messenger’s cowardice caused by an infectious disease in
Mantua that caused his plan’s failure, and that it was the selling of poison to Romeo that was
really the act that caused the chain of events. (Under Veronese law, the potential liability of the
messenger and apothecary cannot be considered in this case because they both settled the
Plaintiffs’ claims against them.)
The case was tried by a jury, which heard the evidence about the events (the record of which is
set out in Shakespeare’s transcript of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet). Verona is a
comparative negligence jurisdiction where wrongdoing can be apportioned between and among
the parties in an action. If a plaintiff is found responsible for fifty percent (50%) or more of
liability, that plaintiff may not collect from a defendant found liable for fifty percent (50%) or
less. Deliberating over two full days, the jury found in favor of the Montagues and Capulets
against Friar Laurence, determining that he was 70% the cause of Romeo’s and Juliet’s deaths
and that the families' history and their respective actions after the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt
were thirty percent (30%) of the cause.
Friar Laurence appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the
evidence and contrary to law because he was not negligent at all and, if he was, he was no more
responsible than the Plaintiffs themselves.
On petition for review, the Supreme Court agreed to review the following two questions:
1.
Was Friar Laurence negligent?
2.
If so, was the jury’s assessment of comparative fault supported by the evidence in the
case?