I wonder what the algorithm says to do when a protestor steps in front of a speeding car that would have to brake hard enough to injure the occupants of the car

I wonder what the algorithm says to do when a protestor steps in front of a speeding car that would have to brake hard enough to injure the occupants of the car in order to avoid hitting the protestor? Under a comparative fault regime, Google and the protestor would both be partially at fault for the occupants injuries. The protestor is broke, so Google will bare the whole burden of being jointly and severally liable. Or should it make a calculation of how badly it's going to injure the occupant and the protestor and minimize the situation in terms of damage to the company, thus possibly choosing to injure the protestor over the occupants to preserve brand value and future revenue?