Carpool Lane: "2 or more persons per vehicle"<p>CA Vehicle Code: '"Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.' (<a href="http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm" rel="nofollow">http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm</a>)<p>Pretty reasonable argument in the abstract.<p>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 thought it was a clever way to gain standing in order to litigate. While it might get the guy off a quick clarification in the Ca law would close the loophole. As a publicity stunt to drive the conversation about rights versus rights assignable entities it seems to have achieved that objective.
Given his intent with this, I would love something like this to make it to the SCOTUS, since the granting of personhood to corporations is absurd and needs to be overruled. Giving a corporation personhood gives it all the rights of being a person with none of the consequences. You can't jail a corporation like you can with people.