|
|
thinks the responsibility is doubtful, at least as far as the single act is
concerned.
In other cases the business incapacity is much more extensive, because delusive
ideas may be post-hypnotically suggested, which may cause incapacity for business
so long as they last, in the same way as do the delusions of the insane. Bentivegni
thinks it should be provisionally supposed that a subject who is under the influence
of a post-hypnotically suggested idea must be considered unfit for business
when this idea is of such a kind that its spontaneous recurrence would partially
or wholly do away with his responsibility.
Finally, besides the post-hypnotic suggestions which do not interfere with consciousness,
and those which alter conscious-
426 HYPNOTISM.
ness, as insane ideas do, Bentivegni discusses a third category of suggestions.
For example, a subject might be told in hypnosis that a particular engraving
was an oil-painting. In such a case the error, the inability to perceive the
real facts, would have to be considered from the legal point of view—i.e.,
as laid down in § 119 of the Civil Code, which allows the validity of a
statement to be disputed by the person who made it, if there be a presumption
that he did so when he was not fully aware of the nature of the case. It is
also possible that § 123, which deals with intentional malicious deception,
might apply.
But, as a general rule, the objection in such a case would have to be based
on the above-mentioned § 105 sec. 2 of the Civil Code. Only, let it be
remembered, this clause of the law must be intelligently interpreted. For even
if it only-treats in a general way of a state of unconsciousness or of disturbance
of the mental activity, and not of one that excludes free volition, we must
remember—and this is a point referred to by the most different interpreters
of the law—its provisions must be considered in conjunction with other
laws bearing on the question, and consequently an"infinitesimal disturbance
of the mental activity, such as may, indeed, be brought about by post-hypnotic
suggestion or some other occurrence, does not straightway render a declaratory
act void.
Besides capacity for business, Bentivegni discusses liability for -damages.
|
|