How has the court interpreted the meaning of a plaintiff's statement in a medical malpractice case?

Shortly after the above observation, however, the court stated: "The most persuasive reason for finding plaintiff states a cause of action is that advanced in Summers [v. Tice (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1]: as between an innocent plaintiff and negligent defendants, the latter should bear the cost of the injury." (Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, supra, 26 Cal.3d at pp. 610-611, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924.) The juxtaposition of those comments could be read to show that the court did not intend the plaintiff to suffer even diminution of the award from inability to recover from some of the defendants. But it is apparent from the context that these statements were made for another purpose. Plaintiffs' meaning cannot properly be attributed to the court's comments.