Does it make sense to sue a gun manufacturer because someone used their guns in a shooting rampage?
The crucial difference being, of course, that the intended use of a car is not to kill people in a drunk driving accident, whereas the primary purpose of a gun _is_ to kill people by shooting them.
Not saying it's necessarily right to sue the manufacturer based on the crimes of the users, but let's not pretend there's no difference.
"That's like a drunk driver protesting innocence because he's covered by the best insurance company."
Wait, what? If a pirate is a drunk driver, then Scribd is a car manufacturer. Does it make sense to sue Ford for drunk driving incidents in their vehicles?