WHO IS A LEGAL PERSON

WHO IS A LEGAL PERSON 

Personality: i) The personality of a human being means the possession of certain characteristics particularly belonging to mankind. E.g.; Power of thought, of speech etc. Hence, there are certain attributes which make a human being a person having the personality recognized by law. If these attributes are absent then that human being is not a person at all. E.g. Slaves are like chattels (things) and therefore not persons at all. Conversely, in law there are persons who are not men; e.g., a municipal corporation, A joint stock company etc. are ‘persons’ though they are not human beings. Similarly an idol is a person. According to jurisprudential theory a person is any being who is capable of rights and duties. Hence any being who is capable of rights and duties is a person. Persons are substances. 

The rights and duties are attributes. This is the juridical significance of personality which has gained legal recognition capable of rights and duties as a person. 

ii) Persons are of two kinds: 

1. Natural persons. 

2. Legal persons. 

A human being is a natural person. Legal persons are beings who are treated for purposes of law as human beings. In olden days if an ox gored a person to death, the ox was guilty of homicide and it was stoned to death and its flesh not eaten. This is no longer the law to-day. A beast is incapable of legal rights and legal duties. Its interests have no recognition in law. Today if an animal causes hurt to a person, there is no wrong. But the responsibility is not the owner of the animal. However, cruelty to animals is a criminal offence and to that extent the animal has a legal right. A ‘Trust’ may be created to benefit a particular class of animals. Eg. Race horses, tigers etc. as beneficiaries. They are entitled to treatment according to the trust dead. However, if the interests of the animal conflict with the interest of human beings, the interest of the human being will prevail. 

LIABILITY 

Liability: Liability or responsibility is the word or tie that comes into existence as a result of the wrongful act of an individual. This is called Vinculum juris by which a man who is under it, must do certain things. A man’s liability consists of these things which he must suffer. It is the ultimatum of the law. It has its sources in the Supreme will of the State.

According to Salmond, liability or responsibility is the bond of necessity that exists between the wrongdoer, and the remedy. “He who commits a wrong is said to be liable or responsible for it”. Liability may be divided either as civil or criminal or as remedial or penal. In the case of civil or remedial liability, the object of the law is the enforcement of right, whereas in case of criminal or penal liability the purpose is the punishment of the wrong-doer. All criminal liability is penal. Civil liability on the other hand may be either penal or remedial. Measure of Penal liability : 

Mens rea: 

The basic principle of a liability is embodied in the legal maxim. “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”. [The act alone does not amount to guilt, it must be accompanied by a guilty mind, “mens rea”]. Hence, there are two conditions to be fulfilled before penal liability can be imposed on a person. It is not enough that a man has done some act. Before the law can justify punishment, an enquiry must be made into the mental attitude of the doer. It is the combination of physical and mental elements that constitutes penal liability. It is not enough to •convict an accused charged of the offence of murder to prove that he has killed another. It should further be proved that he did it intentionally, wilfully and deliberately. According to Salmond, generally a man is penalty responsible for those wrongful acts which he does either wilfully or negligently 

There are three aspects of penal liability viz., conditions, incidence and measure of penal liability. According to Salmond these three elements should be taken into consideration in determining the measure of criminal liability, namely, motive of the offender, the magnitude of the offence, character of the offender. Where there is no inadvertence or negligence, punishment is generally unjustifiable. Hence in inevitable accidents or mistakes it is in general a sufficient ground of exemption from penal responsibility. 

Ex. A driver knowing fully well that the bus is not having the brakes, insists on driving the bus; In consequence the bus has gone out of control and has resulted in an accident injuring B. 

This is an act committed intentionally and hence the driver is liable for punishment. Here the “Mens Rea” (blameworthy mind) is there. But if the bus has been in good condition as regards the brakes system, then while driving, if the accident happens, it could have been said that the accident is inevitable. It has taken place accidentally. Here the driver has no idea of the accident but it is due to failure of the breaks the accident has inevitably occurred. Father was sleeping in a room which was dark and there was a gun kept loaded in that room. His son entered the room, in darkness; the son pressed the trigger of the gun thinking it to be a switch which resulted in firing

of the gun resulting in the death of the father. Father was the victim of the bullet but the son had no intention to kill his father. This is an inevitable accident not murder.