I would guess that it's not a tricky question at all for the company, because the public reaction to a driverless car being hit while stationary is very differe

I would guess that it's not a tricky question at all for the company, because the public reaction to a driverless car being hit while stationary is very different from the public reaction to a driverless car being involved in a collision while moving. People accept the former as a cut-and-dried situation but treat the latter as a he-said, she-said situation where they're free to project their own biases onto the situation. (Was the computer really not at fault? Like the globalist media would ever tell it straight when it comes to robots putting people out of work. Tech companies are never held responsible. Et cetera.) Also, this kind of story is new and interesting right now, so people will pay attention to the details, they'll make up their mind how to feel about later stories that they won't bother to read because it will be boring by then. It's amazing luck for the company to get in a "hit while stationary" story right at the get-go to help groove the narrative that driverless cars are safer than human drivers. From a public perception standpoint it would be so helpful (dons tinfoil hat) that you could almost imagine them arranging some accidents of that kind. I think it would be a dumb chance to take, so I don't believe that's what happened, but I bet they're fist-pumping over their good luck.