Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Frieman contests carpool violation, corporate personhood...

pacificsun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Frieman contests carpool violation, corporate personhood...

#11

Post by xyzzy123 »

Evbn wrote: post #6

Is there another source that clarifies the claim that CA law explicitly includes corporations in the car pool lane laws? As it is, this is such an obvious publicity stunt that I am not inclined to trust the lawyers for Frieman. Some lady in Seattle goes around "marrying" corporations. Unsurprisingly, they aren't legal marriages.

Right; a corporation is a legal person, but there is an additional distinction in the law - you can only marry a natural person (which means the obvious thing).

I haven't looked at the relevant laws, but even if this guy wins his case they will just patch the law to explain that the rules in carpool lanes require natural persons.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person

Re: Frieman contests carpool violation, corporate personhood...

#12

Post by jerrya »

nighthawk wrote: post #4
jasonkolb wrote: post #3

He's going to lose because having the incorporation papers in the car does not mean he has the corporation in the car. I would argue that a corporation's physical location is its registered agent address.

definitely agree, gonna be tough to argue that the corporation itself was "present" in his car

For the sake of argument, I'd say that if the car was registered in the corporation's name then yes, the corporation was present in the car.

Reasoning: if the car had been involved in an accident, who would be sued? Just the driver alone, or the driver and the car's owner?

Re: Frieman contests carpool violation, corporate personhood...

#13

Post by warmwaffles »

jerrya wrote: post #12
nighthawk wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

definitely agree, gonna be tough to argue that the corporation itself was "present" in his car

For the sake of argument, I'd say that if the car was registered in the corporation's name then yes, the corporation was present in the car. Reasoning: if the car had been involved in an accident, who would be sued? Just the driver alone, or the driver and the car's owner?

Both more than likely. First the injury lawyer would get as much as they can from the company's insurance, THEN if that was successful. They could go down the path to get money from the driver, seeing how it was their fault to begin with. It's all really up to how greedy / badly injured the victim is.

Re: Frieman contests carpool violation, corporate personhood...

#14

Post by philwelch »

Lazare wrote: post #9
furyofantares wrote: post #5

I though corporate personhood was just about the ability for a corporation to be party to a contract.

That's part of it, but not even the most important part. The other half is this: Can the US government announce that the New York Times may no longer run stories critical of administration policy? Can they confiscate Apple's cash reserves to help pay off the national debt? Can they, without permission or a warrant, march into Google's data centers and read through all the email stored in Gmail? The answer to these qu…

It also means that if Comcast rips you off, you can sue Comcast. You don't have to chase diffusion of responsibility around to sue the individual humans who wronged you.

Re: Frieman contests carpool violation, corporate personhood...

#15

Post by philwelch »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #11
Evbn wrote: post #6

Is there another source that clarifies the claim that CA law explicitly includes corporations in the car pool lane laws? As it is, this is such an obvious publicity stunt that I am not inclined to trust the lawyers for Frieman. Some lady in Seattle goes around "marrying" corporations. Unsurprisingly, they aren't legal marriages.

Right; a corporation is a legal person, but there is an additional distinction in the law - you can only marry a natural person (which means the obvious thing). I haven't looked at the relevant laws, but even if this guy wins his case they will just patch the law to explain that the rules in carpool lanes require natural persons. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person

Not even a patch may be necessary. At most, the court will rule that corporations don't count as persons for the purposes of carpool lane rules, and the precedent will serve as case law in case anybody else is as stupid as this guy.

Re: Frieman contests carpool violation, corporate personhood...

#16

Post by msgilligan »

Lazare wrote: post #9
furyofantares wrote: post #5

I though corporate personhood was just about the ability for a corporation to be party to a contract.

That's part of it, but not even the most important part. The other half is this: Can the US government announce that the New York Times may no longer run stories critical of administration policy? Can they confiscate Apple's cash reserves to help pay off the national debt? Can they, without permission or a warrant, march into Google's data centers and read through all the email stored in Gmail? The answer to these qu…

Another important reason for corporate 'personhood' is so corporations can be sued.

Re: Frieman contests carpool violation, corporate personhood...

#17

Post by joshuaheard »

The issue in this case is the meaning of the word "person" in the California Vehicle Code, and has nothing to do with corporate personhood which is an established legal doctrine going back hundreds of years. Presumably, the carpool statute requires another "person" in the car, "person" being defined elsewhere in the code as a natural person or corporation. Fortunately, our judicial system gives judges the power to interpret statutes. Since corporations are legal fictions without a corpus, or physical body, the judge will likely hold that a corporation cannot satisfy the "person" requirement in the carpool statute. He will interpret the statute to require a natural person, not a corporation. If this case does go up the chain, look for the legislature to amend the statute in the next session.
Post reply on HN