Civil liability accomplishes several objectives. Most directly, it makes a victim whole. If a person wrongfully injures someone else, the victim should not have to bear the misfortune, but should have some form of compensation and redress so that the damages are put on the person who wrongfully injured the person. But in doing that too, you also regulate conduct. And you can deter individuals from, say, texting on their phone when they should be looking out their windshield, making sure that they're not hitting somebody. So tort law, by imposing damages, you perform several functions. You try to make a victim whole, and of course money doesn't actually compensate injuries, but it is the best that our system can do. You regulate conduct so that people use due care when they engage in activities that may impose a harm on others. You do allocate the cost of accidents. That in using products, for example, it will invariably be the case that some people get hurt. The question is who should have to bear the brunt of that misfortune. Should it be the victim? Should it be an insurance carrier? Should it be the manufacturer of the product? Should it be the other people who use that product and benefit from that product. So you do allocate the cost of accidents? You deter people from engaging in bad behavior. If you know that you're gonna be liable if you injure somebody in a blameworthy fashion, it is an incentive for you to do use due care when you engage in activities. So tort law does have a regulatory aspect. Yale Law School today teaches tort law as tort and regulatory law, as though tort is a branch of regulatory law.