CA Vehicle Code: '"Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.' (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm)
Pretty reasonable argument in the abstract.
But I don't think that the Articles of Incorporation should be considered a physical manifestation of that corporation, so I don't see how you could claim that the corporation was "in the vehicle".
I'm not sure as I haven't studied it, but I suspect the corporation 'lives' at the address for service; alternatively, in a filing cabinet in the CA Secretary of State's office ;-) It certainly doesn't travel around with its papers, any more than you are your passport.
The legal fiction of corporate personhood exists for a good reason; it allows parties external to the corporation to transact business with and take action against the corporation without needing to know the individual structure of it. It's called a corporation because corpore is the Latin for body, giving it a distinct legal identity.
Okay, since I'm sensing this is about to become a type theory conversation, let's start with the function definition:
sue :: Person -> Claim -> Person -> Maybe Money
Now you're basically saying that, given the above definition, we have no choice but to have Company implement the Person typeclass. Unfortunately, there is a lot of code already using the Person typeclass for purposes that are absurd when a Corporation is passed. Consider:
valid_for_carpool :: [Person] -> Boolean
So what to do? One option is to send out emails telling our colleagues to be very careful when using the Person typeclass. The other option is to create a new Suable typeclass, and implement it for both corporations and people.
Which one do you prefer?
But I seriously doubt that this method of getting the issue before a court will work. There are way too many legasl dodges that can be taken before it gets to that point. To really get it to SCOTUS, one would need to have a case where far more substantial harm is done and where the doctrine of corporate personhood plays a key role in the harm. I don't see that here; it's too obviously a ploy and too easy to label as frivolous.
Legal person doesn't have all the same rights, for example I don't think corporation can marry, and thus have a right to not testify against it's partner. (I believe married people can plead 5'th in order to not testify against their spouse.)
Please don't take legal advice from this post, it could be utterly wrong.
