It is different again in areas where insurance is optional and where premiums rise with an individual's poor claims record. Here we see the risk of tort liability starting to put the bite on the insured. The threat of damages starts to perform a compliance function through deterrence. But it is fairly inefficient in this role. Tort liability remains much more than an unintended burden upon an activity superimposed upon an order for compensation.
Tort law plays it part, along with ethical, criminal and commercial sanctions.
Of course, many risky ventures have social utility, and we judges need to remind ourselves of this when pressed by plaintiffs to expand existing bounds of liability, for example, in the field of professional malpractice and in relation to novel duties to control the conduct of others. With this little excursion into tort law, I return to driving on the left hand side of the road. A general perception that deliberately driving on the right hand side is wrong, dangerous and potentially risky to personal liberty is therefore a partially effective compliance mechanism for the individual citizen. But government and business organisations will have additional reasons to be concerned with compliance with such laws. Accidents have direct and indirect costs which can quickly mount up for such organisations.