It's not interesting, though. Responsibility will go to the responsible party.

Your mother's GoogleCar spins out on ice and hits a tree. She wasn't driving; she was a passenger. Who's at fault?

- Should Google have detected ice but didn't? Google is responsible.

- Were the conditions atypically icy due to a sprinkler left running, for example? Then the owner of the sprinkler is responsible.

- Did your mother tamper with the instrumentation of the Google Car in any way? Then your mother is responsible.

- Was the road constructed in such a way that it is abnormally dangerous in icy conditions? Then the highway department is responsible.

Seat belt manufacturers aren't liable if you die in a crash and you were wearing your seat belt. Seat belt manufacturers are liable if their product doesn't conform to the standards set forth in certification by the DOT.

It really is this simple. It's why these discussions bug me. There's a reason Google is going fully autonomous first: they don't have to worry about being blamed for a bunch of chuckleheads that decide to take the wheel. They get blamed for the things they're responsible for, and it's stupid simple to keep their liability in a regime where there's almost nothing that ends up as their fault.