No, people don't just sue the drivers because it's driver error, they sue because they have a chance to get money. People who get t-boned by a driver running a

No, people don't just sue the drivers because it's driver error, they sue because they have a chance to get money. People who get t-boned by a driver running a red light get sued by the insurance company of the driver that ran the light. It can have nothing to do with who is at fault, ultimately, just who is the easiest target. In your Kraft scenario, the store would likely be sued, as would the corporation running the store, Kraft, and potentially the packaging company. Here's a perfect example; the Romaine lettuce E. coli outbreak happens, right. A man eats a salad at a restaurant, gets sick. Who does he sue? Everybody. Has nothing to do with who is responsible, has a lot to do with who is going to pay his bills. Why is the liability for a $200 part lower? If the cars can't apply the brakes properly and people die in car accidents, are they any less responsible? Trucking companies won't say no, because it's extremely unlikely that all the cars will get into accidents all the time, and they don't have to pay more because the car didn't have a driver than they would if the car was being driven by their employee. Why would their insurance rates skyrocket? It appears there will be far less accidents with automated cars.