How have courts interpreted the issue of concurrent or superseding causation in a medical malpractice case?

[219 Cal.App.3d 968] The issue of concurrent or superseding causation in this context was also touched upon in the case of Vermeulen v. Superior Court (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1192, 251 Cal.Rptr. 805. There the court stated that although the purpose of strict liability is to ensure that costs of injuries arising from defective products are borne by the manufacturer while relieving plaintiffs of the burden of proving negligence, " '[f]rom its inception, however, strict liability has never been, and is not now, absolute liability.' " ( Id. at p. 1197, 251 Cal.Rptr. 805, original italics.) Further, the court explained, in a case where concurrent or superseding causation is properly in issue, defendants should be permitted to prove this concurrent or superseding cause by evidence of another tortfeasor's negligence or strict liability. ( Id. at p. 1202, 251 Cal.Rptr. 805.) We conclude this is such a case.