If someone sued Red Hat, for example, if Red Hat (or the computer) crashed and the person lost all of their stuff, that the ruling would likely absolve Red Hat of responsibility
IANAL/IANYL. Nonetheless, I think that's likely, and it is because almost all free software licences include a clear and unambiguous liability disclaimer. Here's the one from the 3-clause BSD, for example, since you've tagged your question BSD:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,
INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING
IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Disclaimers of liability are a pretty (historically and litigiously) well-tested concept. It's difficult to start quoting cases since you don't specify jurisdiction, but wikipedia's article on disclaimers is fairly clear and generally helpful:
Under UK law, the validity of disclaimers is significantly limited by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. By virtue of the Act, a business cannot use a contract term or a notice to exclude or restrict its liability for negligence causing death or personal injury. In the case of other loss or damage, a disclaimer will only be effective so long as it is reasonable in all the circumstances. The common law in other nations may also place legal limits on the validity of disclaimers[...]
In the United States, disclaimers on the sale of goods are covered by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, but details vary by state. Unless considered unconscionable, disclaimers are generally enforceable as part of a contract between knowledgeable parties of comparable bargaining power, but most states do not allow a party to limit their liability for gross negligence.
So you can disclaim your liability to the end-user by using most standard free licences, and courts have generally held disclaimers to be valid, save that if negligence can be proved many jurisdictions will still attach liability.
I use Bitcoin Wallet on my mobile phone, to administer the small amount of Bitcoin I choose to carry around in my pocket. It's GPL3, whose disclaimer is even clearer than 3BSD's. It's been very clear with me about the need to have a wallet backup, and often nagged me if I've not made one recently enough. It's told me I should keep the wallet backup off-device. If something were to go wrong, I wouldn't dream of suing the developers; I've been well-warned.
Obviously with crypto/money things are a bit different.
That's not obvious to me. I find nothing that suggests you generally have a greater duty of care to your users if you're writing software to look after their money than if you're writing software to look after their data - and it's not at all clear that most jurisdictions recognise cryptocurrency as money.