Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 155–179 | Cite as

Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: a quest for legitimacy

Article

Abstract

Robots are now associated with various aspects of our lives. These sophisticated machines have been increasingly used in different manufacturing industries and services sectors for decades. During this time, they have been a factor in causing significant harm to humans, prompting questions of liability. Industrial robots are presently regarded as products for liability purposes. In contrast, some commentators have proposed that robots be granted legal personality, with an overarching aim of exonerating the respective creators and users of these artefacts from liability. This article is concerned mainly with industrial robots that exercise some degree of self-control as programmed, though the creation of fully autonomous robots is still a long way off. The proponents of the robot’s personality compare these machines generally with corporations, and sporadically with, inter alia, animals, and idols, in substantiating their arguments. This article discusses the attributes of legal personhood and the justifications for the separate personality of corporations and idols. It then demonstrates the reasons for refusal of an animal’s personality. It concludes that robots are ineligible to be persons, based on the requirements of personhood.

Keywords

Legal personality Robots Corporations Idols Chimpanzees 

References

  1. Alemzadeh H, Iyer RK, Kalbarczyk Z, Leveson N, Raman J (2015) Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1507/1507.03518.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2015
  2. Allen CK (1931) Legal duties. Yale Law J 40(3):331–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertolini A (2013) Robots as products: the case for a realistic analysis of robotic applications and liability rules. Law Innov Technol 5(2):214–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asaro P (2007) Robots and responsibility from a legal perspective. http://www.peterasaro.org/writing/ASARO%20Legal%20Perspective.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2015
  5. ASIC (2015) ASIC enforcement outcomes: January to June 2015. http://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/reports/rep-444-asic-enforcement-outcomes-january-to-june-2015/. Accessed 24 Dec 2015
  6. Berle AA Jr, Means GC (1932) The modern corporation and private property. The Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumberg PI (1993) The multinational challenge to corporation law: the search for a new corporate personality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Blyth EK (1906) Moral personality and legal personality. Can Law Rev 5(3):166–172Google Scholar
  9. Bora K (2 July 2015) Volkswagen German plant accident: robot grabs, crushes man to death. The International Business Times. http://www.ibtimes.com/volkswagen-german-plant-accident-robot-grabs-crushes-man-death-1993475. Accessed 7 Dec 2015
  10. Bryson JJ (2010) Robots should be slaves. In: Wilks Y (ed) Close engagements with artificial companions: key social, psychological, ethical and design issue. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cellan-Jones R (2014) Technology: Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind’. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540. Accessed 10 Jan 2016
  12. Charney R (2015) Can android plead automatism? A review of when kill: artificial intelligence under the criminal law by Gabriel Hallevy. Univ Tor Fac Law Rev 73(1):69–72MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen FS (1935) Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Rev 35(6):809–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cookson C (11 December 2015) Scientists appeal for ethical use of robots. The Financial Times, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbin AL (1920) Legal analysis and terminology. Yale Law J 29(2):163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corbin AL (1924) Rights and duties. Yale Law J 33(5):501–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis JP (1909) Corporations: a study of the origin and development of great business combinations and of their relation to the authority of the state. B Franklin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Demaitre E (2016) Five robotics predictions for 2016. Robotics Business Review. http://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/article/five_robotics_predictions_for_2016/medical_assistive. Accessed 19 Jan 2016
  19. Dhillon BS (1991) Robot reliability and safety. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-3148-6_4#page-2. Accessed 14 Dec 2015
  20. Duff PW (1929) The personality of an idol. Camb Law J 3(1):42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farrar J (2005) Corporate governance—theories, principles and practice. Oxford University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  22. Filedfisher (2015) Corporate manslaughter case tracker. http://www.fieldfisher.com/media/3694153/corporate-manslaughter-tracker.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2015
  23. Floridi L (2009) Artificial companions and their philosophical challenges. Dialogue Univers 19:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freund E (1897) The legal nature of corporations. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Garner BA (editor in chief) (1999) Black’s law dictionary. West Group, St Paul, MinnGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray JC (1909) The nature and sources of the law. Columbia University Press, YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Hallevy G (2010a) Virtual criminal responsibility. Orig Law Rev 6(1):6–27Google Scholar
  28. Hallevy G (2010b) The criminal liability of artificial intelligence entities—from science fiction to legal social control. Akron Intellect Prop J 4:171–201Google Scholar
  29. Hallevy G (2013) When robots kill: artificial intelligence under criminal law. Northeastern University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  30. Hallis F (1930) Corporate personality: a study in jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansmann H, Kraakman R (2001) The essential role of organisational law. Yale Law J 110(3):387–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansmann H, Kraakman R, Richard S (2006) Law and the rise of the firm. Harv Law Rev 119(5):1335–1403Google Scholar
  33. Harris J, Hargovan A, Adams M (2016) Australian corporate law. LexisNexis Butterworths, ChatswoodGoogle Scholar
  34. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) UK (2012) Collision and injury criteria when working with collaborative robots. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr906.htm. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  35. Holland TE (1900) The elements of jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Hubbard FP (2014) “Sophisticated Robots”: balancing liability, regulation, and innovation. Fla Law Rev 66(5):1803–1872Google Scholar
  37. International Federation of Robotics (IFR) (2015) Industrial robot statistics. http://www.ifr.org/industrial-robots/statistics/. Accessed 22 Oct 2015
  38. Koditschek DE (1989) Robot planning and control via potential functions. In: Khatib O, Craig JJ, Lozano-Pérez T (eds) The robotics review 1. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 349–367Google Scholar
  39. Kraakman R et al (2009) The anatomy of corporate law—a comparative and functional approach. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Leenes R, Lucivero F (2014) Laws on robots, laws by robots, laws in robots: regulating robot behaviour by design. Law Innov Technol 6(2):193–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Machen AW Jr (1911) Corporate personality. Harv Law Rev 24(4):253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matambanadzo SM (2012) Embodying vulnerability: a feminist theory of the person. Duke J Gend Law Policy 20:45–83Google Scholar
  43. Morawetz V (1886) A treatise on the law of private corporations. Little, Brown & Co, BostonGoogle Scholar
  44. Nekam A (1938) The personality conception of the legal entity. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Niman J (2012) In support of creating a legal definition of personhood. J Law Soc Deviance 3:142–244Google Scholar
  46. Noack R (2 July 2015) A robot killed a factory worker in Germany—so who should go on trial? The Washington Post, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Nonhuman Rights Project (2015) Judge recognizes two chimpanzees as legal persons, grants them writ of habeas corpus’. Press Release, New York. http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2015/04/20/judge-recognizes-two-chimpanzees-as-legal-persons-grants-them-writ-of-habeas-corpus/. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  48. Nygh PE (ed) (1997) Butterworths Australian legal dictionary. Butterworth, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  49. Pagallo U (2013) The laws of robots—crimes, contracts, and torts. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  50. Phillips MJ (1994) Reappraising the real entity theory of the corporation. Fla State Univ Law Rev 21(4):1061–1123Google Scholar
  51. Pollock SF (1923) A first book of jurisprudence. Macmillan & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Radin M (1932) The endless problem of corporate personality. Columbia Law Rev 32(4):643–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1995) BDI agents: from theory to practice, pp 312–319. https://www.aaai.org/Papers/ICMAS/1995/ICMAS95-042.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2016
  54. Ripken SK (2010) Corporations are people too: a multi-dimensional approach to the corporate personhood puzzle. Fordham J Corp Financ Law 15:97–177Google Scholar
  55. Salmond JW (1916) Jurisprudence. Stevens and Haynes, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Salmond JW (1947) Jurisprudence. Sweet and Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Sartor G (2009) Cognitive automata and the law: electronic contracting and the intentionality of software agents. Artif Intell Law 17(4):253–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schank RC (1987) What is AI, anyway? Al Mag 8(4):59–65Google Scholar
  59. Sexton PA, Suroff AT, Zmijewski DR, McDowell LN (2010) Recent development in products, general liability, and consumer law. Tort Trial Insur Pract Law J 45(2):517–542Google Scholar
  60. Smith B (1928) Legal personality. Yale Law J 37(3):283–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Solaiman SM, Begum A (2014) Impunity of frequent corporate homicides by recurrent fires at garment factories in Bangladesh: Bangladeshi culpable homicide compared with its equivalents in the United Kingdom and Australia. Co Lawyer 35(10):289–309Google Scholar
  62. Solum LB (1992) Legal personhood for artificial intelligence. North Carol Law Rev 70(4):1231–1287Google Scholar
  63. Stoljar SJ (1973) Groups and entities: an inquiry into corporate theory. Australian National University Press, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  64. Terry HT (1916) The correspondence of duties and rights. Yale Law J 25(3):171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vinogradoff P (1924) Juridical persons. Columbia Law Rev 24(6):594–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vladeck DC (2014) Machines without principals: liability rules and artificial intelligence. Wash Law Rev 89(1):117–150Google Scholar
  67. Weng YH, Chen CH, Sun CT (2009) Toward the human–robot co-existence society: on safety intelligence for next generation robots. Int J Social Robot 1:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. West R (2010) Rights, harms, and duties: a response to justice for hedgehogs. Boston Univ Law Rev 90:819–837Google Scholar
  69. Wolff M (1938) On the nature of legal persons. Law Q Rev 54(4):494–521Google Scholar
  70. Yesey-Fitzgfrad SG (1925) Idolon fori. Law Q Rev 41(4):419–422Google Scholar

Cases

  1. Amadio v Levin [Pa 1985] 501 A2d 1085Google Scholar
  2. A v Healey [2011] FCA 717Google Scholar
  3. ASIC v Healey (No 2) [2011] FCA 1003Google Scholar
  4. ASIC v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17Google Scholar
  5. ASIC v Macdonald (No 11) [2009] NSWSC 287Google Scholar
  6. ASIC v Macdonald (No 12) [2009] NSWSC 714Google Scholar
  7. Bumper Development Corp Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Others (Union of India & Others) [1991] 4 All ER 638Google Scholar
  8. Byrn v New York City Health & Hosp Corp [1972] 286 N E 2d 887Google Scholar
  9. Calaway v Practice Mgt Servs, Inc [2010] Ark 432Google Scholar
  10. Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] ACT 705Google Scholar
  11. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc v Stanley [2015] NY Slip Op 31419(U) ‘Stanley (2015)Google Scholar
  12. Mlacaura v Northern Assurance Co [1925] AC 619Google Scholar
  13. Nydam v R [1977] VR 430Google Scholar
  14. People ex rel Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc v Lavery [2014] 124 A D 3d 148 “Lavery 2014”Google Scholar
  15. Salomon v Solomon Co Ltd [1897] AC 22Google Scholar
  16. Sloan Shipyards Corporation v Emergency Fleet Corporation, (1921) 258 U S 549Google Scholar
  17. Smith v ConAgra Foods, Inc [2013] Ark 502Google Scholar
  18. Transco PLC v Her Majesty’s Advocate (2004) SCCR 1Google Scholar
  19. United States v Walter (1923) 263 U S 15Google Scholar
  20. Wartelle v Women’s & Children’s Hosp, Inc [La 1997]704 So 2d 778Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Hoque & Associates (A Leading Law Firm)DhakaBangladesh

Personalised recommendations