In the "old west" if a horse was spooked and ran a person over, liability for the horse's owner varied but was similar to how this might be handled.
Consider this Supreme Court case, Brown v. Collins. [0]
A pair of horses were spooked by a nearby train engine, causing the animals to damage a stone post.
The driver of the grain-loaded wagon was not found to be at fault because he was "not guilty of any malice or unreasonable unskilfulness or negligence." And that the horses "did damage there against the will, intent and desire of the defendant."
If you read OpenAI's statement, in the Actions Being Taken section:
1. "As part of the investigation, we are implementing strict controls in infrastructure configuration at the cost of research velocity while the vulnerabilities are patched."
Which I think implies that as a result of this incident, OpenAI has instituted controls beyond ~"reasonable skillfulness" such that it might even impede their business (and from a certain point of view impede the progress of the people governed by the laws which might hold the company accountable.)
I'm not taking a position on the merit of the above but I can understand the line of thinking.
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3303590