The Concept of Legal Personality - Term Paper Example

Parties to Legal Proceedings Introduction In a court of law, not all parties are recognised as capable of bringing or defending a suit. It is important that a party proves to the court that he has sufficient connection to an action before the court allows that party to appear before it either as a plaintiff or defendant. This ‘connection’ is largely determined by the legal personality of the person or entity bringing or defending the action. It is therefore crucial to understand the concept of legal personality and its implications. It is precisely the objective of this paper to explore the concept or concepts of legal personality and determine the acts that make a legal personality subject to criminal or civil prosecution. This is important because only with such clear understanding will one be able to comprehend how a person can become subject to civil or criminal liabilities. The Concepts of Legal Personality A person’s legal personality will depend on the role he takes on in society. A person who takes on as many roles as he can has as much legal personalities. A man, for example, can be a husband, father, employee, driver, taxpayer, driver, and lessee all at the same time. All these roles correspond to separate and distinct legal personalities. The ‘legal’ in legal personality simply refers to the fact that a role has consequent duties, and rights recognised by law. The role of being a husband, for example, implies the obligations of fidelity to the marriage and financial support to the marital union. The roles that one takes on also carry concomitant rights. A shopper or customer, for example, is entitled to a replacement of item in the event the bought product turned out to be damaged. It is important to establish when and who can acquire legal personalities in general. With respect to human beings, legal personality is acquired the moment life begins. According to legal precedents, life begins the moment a baby is born and is able to live independently of the mother. In the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liabilities) Act 1976 however, “if a parent of a child affected by an occurrence which results in the child being born disabled, then the perpetrator of that occurrence will be liable to the child if he would be liable in tort to the parent concerned” (Harris 2002 p 63). Legal personality is deemed terminated upon the moment of death. Death used to refer to the time a person’s heart ceases to function but with the advent of modern technology, it has become possible to sustain life with the help of machines. Today, a person is deemed dead when death has become irreversible, that is, the absence of “electrical activity in the brain” (Harris 2002 p 63). Unlawful Conduct Unlawful conduct is simply behavior that contravenes the law. To be considered unlawful, there must be a violated law. The law may refer to statutory laws, case law and common law. Statutory laws are those enshrined in statutes passed by the Parliament. Case law refers to the body of laws established from the decisions of the courts through the years while common laws, which could also include case law, are those established by common usage and custom. There are two factors that must be considered in determining unlawful conduct: actus reus, and; mens rea. Actus reus is the act itself that constituted the illegality and is usually manifested outwardly. Mens rea, on the other hand, is the frame of mind or the intent of the person when he committed the crime. In the crime of theft, for example, the act of taking something without the owner’s consent is the actus reus while the intent of gaining the item is the mens reus. There are two types of unlawful conduct: criminal and civil. The distinctions between the two are: the former refers to acts that breached the peace of the state, the latter by a person against another; in criminal violations, the primary penalty is imprisonment, but the courts may opt for fine or both, community sentence or the death penalty, whilst civil violations are punished by fines; in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ whilst in civil cases ‘preponderance of evidence of evidence.’ ‘Proof beyond reasonable doubt’ is the moral certainty (the book pegs it at 99.999%) that the defendant is guilty whilst ‘preponderance of evidence’ means that if the evidence can be put on a scale, the evidence against the respondent weighed heavier than the exonerating evidence (Arthur 2007 pp 40-41). Legal Personality and Unlawful Conduct As previously stated, a legal personality carries with it concomitant responsibilities. Thus, in Donaghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, a customer who drank a bottle of ginger found to her shock a rotting snail at the bottom of it and sued the ginger ale’s manufacturer. The court held that the manufacturer had the duty to take “reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor” (Arthur 2002 p 4). This case illustrated that possessing a legal personality may subject one to certain liabilities. In criminal liabilities however, minority can be a factor for mitigating a crime. The minor, is not expected to fully comprehend the implications of his act and thus, is not punished the way an adult is when he commits a crime. Instead of being incarcerated, a child may probably be just sent home to his parents and be required to seek professional help. The legal guardian of an incapacitated person may bring or defend a case on behalf that incapacitated person. There are however exceptions to the rule. In the case of Re A (Children) [2000] 4 All E.R. 961, a Hospital went to court on behalf of a conjoined twins whose parents refuse to submit them to surgery that would separate them. One twin is healthy while the other is expected not to live long. The court entertained the case despite the fact that the Hospital is obviously not the legal guardians of the twins. Although causing the death of a person is generally regarded as a criminal act, there are instances when this is not so. A comatose person for example, whose life is merely sustained by a life-support machine, may upon order of the court be turned off letting the person die. This is what happened in the Tony Bland case where the court decided the fate of Bland, a victim of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 by ordering the removal of such support. Conclusion Only persons with certain legal personalities can sue or be sued in a court of law. In this context, a person has a legal personality to be a party to a specific case if he has identifiable connection, as opposed to being a stranger, to the case. A reckless driver for example, can be sued under the Road Traffic Act of 1972, because when he applied for a license he impliedly agreed to abide by the traffic laws of the country or if he drove without first getting the license, he also violated the law which requires passing and getting a license before driving. The act of driving therefore automatically attributed a legal personality on the driver which makes him susceptible to liabilities under the traffic laws. A person with a legal personality has therefore both rights and duties as a consequence of such legal personality. The ‘legal’ nature of such personality entitles him to be recognised by a court of law. For every specific role that a person takes in society, the legal system has automatically conferred upon it obligations which if he breaches, in the exercise of such role, either results in criminal or civil liability. Thus, being an employer requires that one act in accordance to the employment contract or being a landlord requires that one acts under the appropriate tenancy law and the lease agreement. To do otherwise could result in unlawful conduct which can subject one to liabilities. References Aethur, Raymond 2002. “Differences Between Civil and Criminal Law” Unlawful Conduct. Unit 7. The Open University. Pp 40-41 Harris, P. 2002, “Legal Persons.” An Introduction to Law, London, Butterworths, pp. 108--10. Read More