The underlying issue here is the flawed presumptions...
A decision was made that the worst case scenario specific to a tire failure might result in a significant fuel leak (DC) but would not reach an order of magnitude capable of a catastrophic loss of the airplane. The simple fact is that this determination was wrong.
A prudent and reasonable person faced with the reality that tire failure would with certainty lead to ruptured fuel tanks and the resultant fuel leaks would look for a method to protect against the leaks.
The most significant underlying fact is that the technology existed to minimize the danger of a fuel leak specific to damage caused by tire failure. The issue here is not the cause of a specific failure but the stark reality that the airline chose not to maximize the safety of the aircraft for purely economic reasons by relying on a flawed analysis of the possibilities of catastrophic failure.
Air France had a legal and moral responsibility to operate the aircraft taking all reasonable measures to protect its customers. I have zero doubt that a jury presented with the facts available would find AF guilty of failing to act in a prudent and reasonable manner.