First, arguments that compare dangerous things to cars are usually dumb because they, by necessity, are so generalized. I know that you took the analogy from that CNN piece, I'm not attributing it to you specifically.
Second, this case does not say that J&J broke the law when the manufactured a dangerous product. This case says that J&J broke the law by aggressively and misleadingly marketing opioids (including fentanyl) and promoting their over-prescription (making claims that pain was undertreated and that the risk of addiction was low) , which lead to increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma. The holding goes on like this for like 10 pages:
So no, car companies should not have to pay for accidents that they know are going to happen because they sell cars. They should pay for accidents that occur because they convinced people that cars were totally safe (which they don't do, as far as I know).