I say, and with God's help: This issue has been thoroughly researched by the contemporary jurist, the esteemed scholar Muhammad Taqi Usmani, in his beneficial and enjoyable book "Contemporary Jurisprudential Issues" on page 311. Here is a summary of what is mentioned: "The principle is that the driver of the vehicle is responsible for everything that happens with his vehicle while he is operating it, because the vehicle is a tool in his hand, and he is capable of controlling it. Therefore, he is responsible for everything that arises from the vehicle. It appears to me that there is a significant difference between an animal and a vehicle in that the animal moves by itself, whereas the vehicle does not move except by the action of the driver. From this perspective, I see that what the jurists mentioned regarding the difference between what the animal causes with its mouth or hand, and what it causes with its foot or tail does not apply to the vehicle. They held the rider responsible in the first case but not in the second; because the rider of the animal cannot avoid what the animal does with its foot or tail. As for the vehicle, it does not move by itself; all parts of the vehicle are tools for the driver, and he can control all its components because its parts are interconnected, and no part has independent movement from the others. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle must be liable for any damage that arises from it, whether that damage arises from the front parts of the vehicle, the rear parts, or from either side; because all of that is under the driver's control, and none of it moves by itself. Thus, the principle is that the driver of the vehicle is liable for any damage that arises from its wheels, front, rear, or either side; because the vehicle is a pure tool in the hands of the driver, and the harm is directly attributed to him. If the driver is negligent in his driving by violating traffic rules, such as driving at an unusual speed for that location, or not adhering to his lane on the road, and so on with other traffic rules, there is no doubt that he is liable; because the damage arose from his negligence, and the negligent party is liable in all cases. However, if he is not negligent in his driving, meaning he drives his vehicle while adhering to all traffic rules... the driver is liable for the damage he directly caused, even if he was not negligent; because it has been established by the consensus of jurists that direct involvement does not require negligence for liability... Therefore, for him to be liable, the direct involvement must be attributed to him without interference in a reasonable manner, and based on this, he is not liable in the following scenarios: 1. If the driver is driving his vehicle while adhering to all traffic rules, but a person suddenly pushes another person in front of his vehicle in such a way that he could not stop the vehicle before hitting him, and the vehicle hits him, then the driver is not liable, but the person who pushed is liable...; because the direct involvement cannot be attributed to the driver of the vehicle in this scenario; because the influence of the person pushing here is stronger than the influence of the driver... 2. If the driver stopped his vehicle at a traffic signal waiting for the signal to open the road, and a vehicle from behind hit him and pushed him forward, causing his vehicle to hit someone, then the liability is not on the driver of the vehicle, but rather on the driver of the vehicle that hit him from behind; because the direct involvement cannot be attributed to the front vehicle, as it was pushed like a tool by the rear vehicle... 3. If the vehicle was sound before driving it, and the driver was negligent in a known manner, then a sudden malfunction occurred in one of its devices, causing the vehicle to go out of the driver's control and preventing him from controlling it, and it hit a person... then there is no liability on the driver...; because what happened with the vehicle after it went out of the driver's control is an incident that occurred due to a malfunction in one of its devices, and it cannot be attributed to the driver, and it cannot be said that the driver directly caused the damage; the most that can be said is that he is the cause of the loss, as he was the one who drove the vehicle initially, and since he is the cause, negligence is required for his liability. If he was negligent in a known manner, and drove it while adhering to traffic rules in a normal manner, then he is not liable due to lack of negligence. Yes! If he violated any of these conditions, such as not taking care of the vehicle, or driving it with a visible malfunction in one of its devices, or driving it violently, then he is liable in that case, even if the vehicle went out of his control; because he is the cause of the vehicle's loss due to his negligence.... 4. If a person drives a vehicle in a public street adhering to the prescribed speed, following the designated lane according to the system, and being cautious in his driving according to traffic rules, and suddenly a man jumps in front of him, causing the vehicle to hit him despite the driver doing what he was supposed to do by braking and so on... then if the man who jumped in front of the vehicle jumped close enough that the vehicle could not stop in its usual course in that place by braking, and his jump was sudden and not foreseeable by a cautious and attentive driver, then his death or injury in such a scenario is not attributed to the driver of the vehicle, and it cannot be said that he directly caused the damage, so the driver is not liable, and the jumper becomes the cause of his own demise." And God knows best.