Under Au law, I understand damages are very limited for psychological angst and suffering, hence choosing a more favourable legal system.
It is pertinent, no doubt, whether or not this software vulnerability should have been evident with reasonable programming and testing. Lots of aircraft, very few episodes ... But it's all in the spin.
As with most things, lawyers will have us believe everything is obvious in retrospect.
I don't believe the Rocket propelled grenade analogy is either helpful, or relevant. No-one was trying or intending to hurt anyone, here.
Blame is endemic, and unhelpful ...
It remains to be seen whether there is evidence for cash as a cure for injury ... But that is another matter, entirely.
Back to usual programming. (be nice, it's my first post)
It is actually more for legal requirements than merchant. Any damages leveraged by a court against a company can only be enforced in that jurisdiction. For a company like Airbus which has little presence in Australia, bring a legal case in Australia could be futile as the court could not enforce it. That would then require the overseas court to enforce the case, which is very very hard to achieve. They are much better off bringing the case to action in a country where the company has a large establishment. In this case as the US is based on the common law system, meaning it makes much more sense to bring a case there than in a civil law system.
This is very different from arbitration which when following the international conventions can be enforced in foreign states. The reason for these cases to not be brought in arbitration could be multiple.
These cases are most likely the most extreme end of the scale, and involve lingering injuries (including head trauma) which may effect the person's income and care requirements for the future. Till recently most international aviation agreements actually work servilely in favour of the aviation industry, this was to try and grow it while it was young. But newer agreements have started to remove these protections recognising they are not required for public policy any more as the industry is extremely competitive. One of the first protections removed was injury to human life and costs inflected to those people.
If someone has head trauma and requires care for life with little income ability, it is extremely expensive.