It should discourage them from making unsafe products. If it's not economical for them to make safe products, it's good that they go bankrupt and the economic resources - talent, money - go to someone else. Bankruptcy and business failure are just as fundamental to capitalism as profit.
Should they compensate the victims of such accidents? Of course. Should they pay out the equivalent of winning the lottery? That seems a bit much.
Businesses also claim that, all the time. We need some evidence.
I remember doctors claiming that malpractice lawsuits were out of control; research I read said that it wasn't an economic issue for doctors and that malpractice was out of control.
My read is that people overpowered the safety interlock, after which the lid (predictably) flew off, and they were injured (mostly by the hot steam and bits of food). I think it's ridiculous for people to expect safety mechanisms to be impossible to bypass, but maybe you disagree!
And you obviously think doing so was next to impossible therefore Instant Pot shouldn't be liable.
But what evidence do you have of the difficulty of bypassing that specific safety mechanism?
I originally read the documents to understand whether the unit I own is safe, and believed in its safety strongly enough that I have continued to use it.
Because I'd bet you that the jury certainly did.