Q: Can we use "have" in the meaning other than the usual "giving orders" meaning and such? Can we use personification in accordance with the verb have when talking about an action or feeling inspired by something that has no authority over us and no ability to make us do anything or give us orders?

"The article had me mad at the dishonesty in it."
"The movie had me getting bored, it wasn't very interesting."
"All the work had me exhausted by the end of the day."

And is it possible to have an inanimate object do something without the most commonly associated implication of giving an order, but rather an undefined way of causing it to perform the action? e.g.:

"The lovely scent of spring had me want to go outside."
"When the button is pushed the doll has it's head turn."

And also can we say the following:

"He won by having someone else helping him."
"She was thought to have been having someone else doing her work for her."
"The dog died by having a careless driver drive over it."

Do the above examples make any sense?

A: If a non-person X is causing you to do Y, not just "force/compel to become like/have a quality of Y", use to make me Y.

The fire made me leave the building.
The fire had me leave the building (sounds wrong)

This sounds OK if X is a person.

The usher had me leave the building (OK).

So ...

"The lovely scent of spring had me want to go outside."

This sounds wrong to me, use made.

"When the button is pushed the doll has it's head turn."

Sounds OK.  Using makes instead of has would make it sound more "mechanical".

"The dog died by having a careless driver drive over it."

Well ... how could a dog have (i.e. force/compel) a driver to drive over it?  If you really meant that, it's correct, but more likely you mean:

The dog died by having been driven over by a careless driver.

and "having" here is an auxillary verb of "driven" and not otherwise meaningful in the sentence.
