In your example let's replace the TV with a weapon and I bet you will be still found liable for not taking appropriate precautions to secure your weapon like keeping it in a locked safe.
Similarly, most online crime uses lots of compromised machines as its infrastructure. Making their owners/operators liable would actually add an incentive to not buy/operate insecure devices which in turn would put pressure on manufacturers to make secure products, otherwise customers will be afraid to buy them if it can get them in legal trouble.
So what happens if I drop that TV on top of someone else's head?
The point is that a basic breach like this should be treated as negligence.
Which puts this further on the attacker. The attacker can't claim that I should have nicer things and he couldn't help himself. There's way too much victim blaming in information security.
Fun fact: this isn’t true in the US. For example: you can leave your car unlocked and with keys in it, and if it’s stolen you’ll still be covered by insurance.