Civilly, absolutely. Ultimately their machines did a harm to the other guys machines. They have to pay the fixem price. A judge would find that a fairly straightforward decision. Two agrieved parties, one harmed the other. No jugement as to culpability. If I accidently hit your car, I have to pay your repair. (Or rather my insurance would reimburse your insurance)
Criminally, there might be an argument for negligence? But it'd be a really hard case to prosecute, and frankly I suspect most prosecutors would rather be using their limited resources locking up rapists and muggers, than trying to stick bracelets on a guy who can turn up with the entire wall street legal bar as defence on a *very* cloudy question of culpability.
Honestly, I think they actually need to pass some laws to actually create a more straight forward theory of prosecution. "If you negligently let your clankers rape another dudes servers, you can be charged as if you broke into that server yourself. Incompetence is a partial defence. Genuine ignorance a complete defence" (Ie if you had no idea your robbie the robot had trundled down the road and held up the gas station, then yeah.... that might be a bit unfair to give you 30 hard years for owning the robot. But your ignorance that its possible should only be a partial defence if you had every opportunity to read the fucking manual where it says "Robbie is bit of a clepto, dont let him have a gun".