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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The terms ‘person’ or ‘persons’ in this article refers to ‘legal personality’ unless otherwise mentioned, because we omit ‘moral personality’ from consideration in this piece.

  2. 2.

    For differences between legal and moral personality, see Blyth (1906).

  3. 3.

    Cited in Stanley (2015). However, the citation in People ex rel Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc v Lavery 2014/Lavery 2014’) was: ‘Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “person” as “[a] human being” or, as relevant here, “[a]n entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties [of] a human being” [emphasis added]: Garner (1999). The court also cited (Salmond 1947) for a similar view.

  4. 4.

    For an analysis of the words ‘rights’ ‘duties’ and ‘liabilities, see Corbin (1920).

  5. 5.

    Physical Relation: ‘A relation perceivable by the senses, between two physical objects. This would include relations of space, time, weight, color, density, and the like’: Corbin (1920).

  6. 6.

    The case can be found in: Smith v ConAgra Foods, Inc (2013); Calaway v Practice Mgt Servs, Inc (2010); Wartelle v Women's & Children's Hosp, Inc (1997): Cited in People ex rel Nonhuman Rights Project Inc v Lavery (2014).

  7. 7.

    The case has been discussed at some length further later in this article.

  8. 8.

    Idols are also regarded as a ‘juristic person’ as will be shown later in this article.

  9. 9.

    For example, see s114 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); s123 of the Companies Act 2006 (UK).

  10. 10.

    This article has been generously followed in discussing the corporate personality section in the present article.

  11. 11.

    In Germany, corporations cannot be held liable under criminal law, however can be fined for regulatory offences, in contrast, they can be criminally liable even for manslaughter in major common law countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia.

  12. 12.

    See, for example, s 124 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in Australia. It beings with: ‘A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual….’

  13. 13.

    See more than 50 sections listed in s1317E on civil penalty and Schedule 3 containing 346 sections on criminal liability of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Australia.

  14. 14.

    Generally, a company can be of different types by reference to the liability of its shareholders in the event of its winding up. These are: company limited by shares, company limited by guarantee, company limited by both shares and guarantees, unlimited company, and no liability company: For details (see Harris et al. 2016).

  15. 15.

    The owners are punished in effect when a corporation is penalised in that any pecuniary penalties reduce the value of their ownership holdings, and if a corporate capital punishment is awarded, then the owners are in most cases likely to suffer even more financial losses given the additional costs involved in the winding up or liquidation procedure, which will be paid as a priority payment.

  16. 16.

    For numerous civil cases where corporations and/or individuals were held liable for corporate wrongdoings (see Hubbard 2014; Sexton et al. 2010).

  17. 17.

    See, for example of administrative actions against corporations and individuals, Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC 2015).

  18. 18.

    Recent leading cases in Australia under its corporate civil penalty regime: ASIC v Macdonald (No 11) (2009); ASIC v Macdonald (No 12) (2009); ASIC v Hellicar (2012); A v Healey (2011); ASIC v Healey (No 2) (2011).

  19. 19.

    See for recent several manslaughter cases in the United Kingdom: Filedfisher (2015).

  20. 20.

    The doctrine was applied in a more recent case of Transco PLC v Her Majesty’s Advocate (2004). For its initial consideration, see Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd (1915). A discussion of this common law theory falls beyond the scope of this article, however, for its analysis at some length see Solaiman and Begum (2014).

  21. 21.

    Autonomous intelligence denotes the ‘capabilities for solving problems involving pattern recognition, automated scheduling, and planning based on prior experience’ (Koditschek 1989).

  22. 22.

    Some knowledge about themselves—what they need, what they think etc.

  23. 23.

    Awareness of the outside world, past experience etc.

  24. 24.

    The ability to act towards achieving specific goals.

  25. 25.

    For details of these attributes, see Schank (1987).

  26. 26.

    Discussions of these arguments and objections at some length have been avoided in order to keep this piece in a manageable size. For details, see Solum (1992).

  27. 27.

    Although the notion of BDI (Belief-Desire-Intention) plays an important role in Multi Agent Systems (Rao and Geogeff 1995), these terms have a very technical meaning in that context, which does not entirely correspond to that intended by Solum.

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):331–380

    Article  Google 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):214–247

    Article  Google 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blumberg PI (1993) The multinational challenge to corporation law: the search for a new corporate personality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blyth EK (1906) Moral personality and legal personality. Can Law Rev 5(3):166–172

    Google 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 63–74

    Google 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):69–72

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen FS (1935) Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Rev 35(6):809–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cookson C (11 December 2015) Scientists appeal for ethical use of robots. The Financial Times, UK

  15. Corbin AL (1920) Legal analysis and terminology. Yale Law J 29(2):163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Corbin AL (1924) Rights and duties. Yale Law J 33(5):501–527

    Article  Google 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 York

    Google 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):42–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Farrar J (2005) Corporate governance—theories, principles and practice. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

    Google 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 19:31–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Freund E (1897) The legal nature of corporations. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  25. Garner BA (editor in chief) (1999) Black’s law dictionary. West Group, St Paul, Minn

  26. Gray JC (1909) The nature and sources of the law. Columbia University Press, York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hallevy G (2010a) Virtual criminal responsibility. Orig Law Rev 6(1):6–27

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hallevy G (2010b) The criminal liability of artificial intelligence entities—from science fiction to legal social control. Akron Intellect Prop J 4:171–201

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hallevy G (2013) When robots kill: artificial intelligence under criminal law. Northeastern University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hallis F (1930) Corporate personality: a study in jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hansmann H, Kraakman R (2001) The essential role of organisational law. Yale Law J 110(3):387–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hansmann H, Kraakman R, Richard S (2006) Law and the rise of the firm. Harv Law Rev 119(5):1335–1403

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harris J, Hargovan A, Adams M (2016) Australian corporate law. LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood

    Google 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hubbard FP (2014) “Sophisticated Robots”: balancing liability, regulation, and innovation. Fla Law Rev 66(5):1803–1872

    Google 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 349–367

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kraakman R et al (2009) The anatomy of corporate law—a comparative and functional approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google 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):193–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Machen AW Jr (1911) Corporate personality. Harv Law Rev 24(4):253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Matambanadzo SM (2012) Embodying vulnerability: a feminist theory of the person. Duke J Gend Law Policy 20:45–83

    Google Scholar 

  43. Morawetz V (1886) A treatise on the law of private corporations. Little, Brown & Co, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nekam A (1938) The personality conception of the legal entity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  45. Niman J (2012) In support of creating a legal definition of personhood. J Law Soc Deviance 3:142–244

    Google Scholar 

  46. Noack R (2 July 2015) A robot killed a factory worker in Germany—so who should go on trial? The Washington Post, USA

  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, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pagallo U (2013) The laws of robots—crimes, contracts, and torts. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  50. Phillips MJ (1994) Reappraising the real entity theory of the corporation. Fla State Univ Law Rev 21(4):1061–1123

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pollock SF (1923) A first book of jurisprudence. Macmillan & Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  52. Radin M (1932) The endless problem of corporate personality. Columbia Law Rev 32(4):643–667

    Article  Google 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 15:97–177

    Google Scholar 

  55. Salmond JW (1916) Jurisprudence. Stevens and Haynes, London

    Google Scholar 

  56. Salmond JW (1947) Jurisprudence. Sweet and Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sartor G (2009) Cognitive automata and the law: electronic contracting and the intentionality of software agents. Artif Intell Law 17(4):253–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schank RC (1987) What is AI, anyway? Al Mag 8(4):59–65

    Google 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):517–542

    Google Scholar 

  60. Smith B (1928) Legal personality. Yale Law J 37(3):283–299

    Article  Google 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):289–309

    Google Scholar 

  62. Solum LB (1992) Legal personhood for artificial intelligence. North Carol Law Rev 70(4):1231–1287

    Google Scholar 

  63. Stoljar SJ (1973) Groups and entities: an inquiry into corporate theory. Australian National University Press, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  64. Terry HT (1916) The correspondence of duties and rights. Yale Law J 25(3):171–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Vinogradoff P (1924) Juridical persons. Columbia Law Rev 24(6):594–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Vladeck DC (2014) Machines without principals: liability rules and artificial intelligence. Wash Law Rev 89(1):117–150

    Google 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 1:267–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. West R (2010) Rights, harms, and duties: a response to justice for hedgehogs. Boston Univ Law Rev 90:819–837

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wolff M (1938) On the nature of legal persons. Law Q Rev 54(4):494–521

    Google Scholar 

  70. Yesey-Fitzgfrad SG (1925) Idolon fori. Law Q Rev 41(4):419–422

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  1. Amadio v Levin [Pa 1985] 501 A2d 1085

  2. A v Healey [2011] FCA 717

  3. ASIC v Healey (No 2) [2011] FCA 1003

  4. ASIC v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17

  5. ASIC v Macdonald (No 11) [2009] NSWSC 287

  6. ASIC v Macdonald (No 12) [2009] NSWSC 714

  7. Bumper Development Corp Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Others (Union of India & Others) [1991] 4 All ER 638

  8. Byrn v New York City Health & Hosp Corp [1972] 286 N E 2d 887

  9. Calaway v Practice Mgt Servs, Inc [2010] Ark 432

  10. Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] ACT 705

  11. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc v Stanley [2015] NY Slip Op 31419(U) ‘Stanley (2015)

  12. Mlacaura v Northern Assurance Co [1925] AC 619

  13. Nydam v R [1977] VR 430

  14. People ex rel Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc v Lavery [2014] 124 A D 3d 148 “Lavery 2014”

  15. Salomon v Solomon Co Ltd [1897] AC 22

  16. Sloan Shipyards Corporation v Emergency Fleet Corporation, (1921) 258 U S 549

  17. Smith v ConAgra Foods, Inc [2013] Ark 502

  18. Transco PLC v Her Majesty’s Advocate (2004) SCCR 1

  19. United States v Walter (1923) 263 U S 15

  20. Wartelle v Women’s & Children’s Hosp, Inc [La 1997]704 So 2d 778

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to two anonymous reviewers for their scholarly, constructive and very helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. M. Solaiman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Solaiman, S.M. Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: a quest for legitimacy. Artif Intell Law 25, 155–179 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9192-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Legal personality
  • Robots
  • Corporations
  • Idols
  • Chimpanzees