Probably goes without saying. People should be allowed to be safe in their home without being possibly killed by space debris. If not, humanity is doing something wrong.
Its arrogance to think we are immune from unexpected and sudden death because we are humans.
Also, cars and trucks occasionally do drive through homes, if the homes are next to large roads. Its rare, but far more common than space debris.
Also, keep in mind these space debris, even if they hit homes, are unlikely to kill, a 10cm diameter ball (Aka 80cm^2 = 0.008m area) is unlikely to hit someone in a 100m^2 home.
Why is getting killed by space debris is less pleasant than getting killed by a meteorite?
The point is there is a background risk of sky-born peril. There is tremendous opportunity in putting things in orbit. Given the frequencies of any damage or injury from extra-atmospheric debris, of our or nature's making, it would be surprising if the marginal benefits gained from optimising for more safety would outweigh the opportunity cost.
We should look for cheap optimisiations that reduce the risk of peril. But eliminating the possibility is impossible; pursuing massive reductions in risk absurd.
In terms of liability, we (society) usually make a distinction between nature and events produced by humans.
If a hurricane falls a tree and it collapses your house, that's just nature.
If someone is cutting that tree and they do it wrong and it collapses your house, you'd hope they are liable.
There is a Tesla in space. No homes are safe. Anywhere. In. The. Universe.
Fixed that for you.
NASA, for instance, estimates the risk of a civilian being killed by reentry , and has a formula that says how much money they can spend to eliminate how much risk.