It's an entertaining thought experiment but it falls apart as soon as you examine case law.

LET'S ASSUME:

1) You own the car

2) It has some aspect of "googlism" in it

If that aspect of "googlism" causes your property to cause you personal injury, Google has violated product liability law.

LET'S INSTEAD ASSUME

1) You rented the car

2) It has some aspect of "googlism" in it

If that aspect of googlism causes property in your proximate control to cause you injury, Google has violated product liability law.

SO LET'S INSTEAD ASSUME

1) You're an innocent goddamn bystander

2) A car that has some aspect of "googlism" in it runs you over on the sidewalk in the interests of "the better good"

Google has committed an unintentional tort against you.

"the better good" has no part in case law. GM saved all of its consumers $3 by making shitty ignition switches. It killed 7 people because of it. Nobody said "way to go, GM, you saved consumers $3." The only way product liability works is if the vehicle that you own acts in your interests to the exclusion of all others.