If the car's brakes don't work due to a defect, you are not liable at all.
And if you show reasonable due diligence, that is regular maintenance, the same applies doubly so.
Beyond that, I've seen a lot of accidents, and none of them were the car's fault.
All were literally human error, or external factors. EG, deer leaping on to road, too many frogs on the road, etc
Morally perhaps but if you drive into the back of me because your brakes have a manufacturing fault I would still expect you to pay for the damage. The manufacturer may then be liable to you but that that is your business.
If you are driving a car and an crash occurs due to a manufacturing defect, you'll probaly not be found criminally liable.
This becomes super important if someone gets injured or killed.
I can be "warned" to check for issues if the car is older, creaking, seems to be "driving" different etc
A mistake in a mostly completely uninterpretable bundle of software is definetely much sneakier. You can't prepare for it
So I guess that's one argument.
The other aspect of the same argument would be that if you're in an accident due to your car breaking in a way that is obviously the fault of the maker, they will absolutely eat the liability. I think this is how a few recall cases get kickstarted
If liability for software will rest with the driver, there are no laws regulating it's quality and maintenance, what is the basis to believe it will be anywhere near ad reliable?