How would the outcome have changed if Norris had no insurance at all?

If Norris had no insurance at all, he would still be liable for any damages or injuries he caused, which is why the first choice is correct. Liability in legal contexts typically refers to the legal responsibility for one's actions, particularly in causing harm to others. The absence of insurance does not negate this responsibility; rather, it means that Norris would personally bear the financial burden of any claims or lawsuits that arise from his actions.

In scenarios where individuals or businesses operate without insurance, they remain legally accountable for their actions, and if they cause harm, they may face lawsuits, be required to pay damages out of pocket, or even experience other legal repercussions. Essentially, the lack of insurance places the entire burden of liability on the individual.

The other choices suggest potential benefits or absolutions that could incorrectly imply that liability would somehow change or diminish based on insurance status, which is not the case in the context of legal liability.