The California law strikes me as unreasonable. It's an example of the law being expedient rather than just: The person who should be responsible is the person who perpetrated the "negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of the motor vehicle." But if that person has had to borrow a car then perhaps they don't have any money, so plaintiffs want to take it out of the pocket of someone who we know has at least enough money to buy a car notwithstanding their apparent lack of any wrongdoing. The just outcome when the owner lends a vehicle to someone who is not known to be irresponsible is for the driver to be liable and, if the driver may not have enough money to pay the damages and we want the injured party to be made whole, the government should establish a requirement to carry sufficient insurance.
> In general, the owners of things are liable for damages caused by those things.
In general the owners have to have been at least negligent to be liable. And the cases to the contrary are similarly contemptible instances of injustice where the lawmakers see sympathetic plaintiffs and nearby deep pockets from which to filch coins and for political reasons (in the case of legislatures) or because they are restricted to deciding a single case (in the case of judges) are more inclined to impose liability in innocent bystanders than set out a requirement for parties to insure against losses incurred through the acts of culpable but insolvent third parties.
> The question of liability is not irrelevant, because insurance does not transfer liability it transfers a quantified, limited amount of risk. If I cause damage in excess of my insurance coverage, I am still liable for the damage and I'll have to make up the difference.
But that isn't the common outcome. The common outcome for a self driving car is for there not to be a collision. In the rare case of a collision, the common outcome is for there to be insurance which covers the damages. In the rare case the insurance is insufficient, the common outcome is for the vehicle owner to be insolvent (because owners with wealth to protect will tend to carry larger amounts of insurance).
If you want to be pedantic, the question of who has liability is complicated. But in the very large majority of cases the relevant question of who pays for the damages is simple: Cars are required by law to be insured and the insurance company pays. And if that isn't the common case then it's a strong argument for increasing the legally mandated minimum amount of insurance.
