Plaintiff, Merle Morgan, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Sharon Rose Morgan, deceased, brought an action pursuant to the wrongful death act 1 against the defendants Andrew J. McDermott, Jr., and James Alan Coak, jointly and severally, fоr the death of Sharon. This suit arose out of an automobile accident January 29,1964, in which defendant Coak, operating a motor vehicle owned by defendant McDermott, collided head-on with a motor vehicle in which the decedent was riding. Promptly after this suit was started and service made on defendants, they moved to add the Board of County Road Commissioners of thе County of Oakland as a third-party defendant. The motion was granted and the original defendants then filed their answer. In the third-party сomplaint it was alleged that the county road on which the accident occurred was unsafe, that the third-party defеndant had knowledge of this condition, failed to correct same and therefore it contributed to the cause of the accident. This latter complaint contends that therefore the original defendants have a right of contribution from the third-party defendant based on their liability under CLS 1961, § 600-.2925(1) (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2925[1]). 2
On January 31, 1966, the trial court granted the third-party defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment and dismissed defendant’s complaint ruling
*263 that the failure to give notice in accordance with CDS 1961, §224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Eev §9.121) bаrred the claim. We must decide whether this notice requirement applies to a third-party action against a county rоad commission for contribution between joint tort-feasors arising out of a wrongful death claim.
It is conceded on aрpeal that neither the original plaintiff nor the defendants served or caused to.be served a written notice upon the clerk and chairman of the board of county road commissioners of their claim.
The third-party defendant-appellee in its brief cites three cases and on oral argument another to bolster its argument that the trial court did not err in granting the motion for accelerated judgment.
Methvin
v.
County of Monroe
(1951),
The three cited Michigan cases each involve suits by an injured party direсtly against a municipality or county — do not involve the wrongful death act and do not involve a right of contribution by one tort-fеasor against a joint tort-feasor. These cases shed no light on the precise issue presented here.
The White Case is factuаlly distinguishable. It involves a statute of Minnesota, quite similar to Michigan’s statute, which made notice to a municipality a conditiоn precedent to instituting suit. The. supreme court of Minnesota held that the right to recover contribution was not defeatеd by failure of the plaintiff to give notice where the third-party defendant gave notice to the city of his claim for injury.
Appellant relies on a decision by District Judge Fox in
Kraus
v.
Board of County Road Commission
*264
ers for Kent County
(WD Mich, 1964),
“And yet the notice requirement of CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Eev § 9.121), pertаins only to personal injuries, and makes no mention, as the amendment tó CLS 1961, § 242.1 (Stat Ann 1958 Eev § 9.591) does, of damages suffered by another as а result of such injuries, as is the case in an action for wrongful death. Were it the intention of the legislature to include wrongful death actions within the ambit of the notice requirement of CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Eev §9.121), it must be presumed, in the light of the Radio and McCaul Cases, supra, and the 1951 amendment to CLS 1961, § 242.1 (Stat Ann 1958 Eev § 9.591), that it wоuld have made specific provision for such notice. . In the absence of such a declaration, this Court is constrained to the holding that the notice provisions of CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Eev § 9.121) are inapplicable in actions for wrongful death.” 6
We adopt the reasoning of Kraus v. Board of County Road Commissioners, supra, and hold that the 60 day notice provision of CLS 1961, § 224.21, supra, does not apply to a wrongful death action.
The statutory right of action for contribution between joint tort-feasors arises becаuse one tort *265 feasor pays more than his pro rata share of a joint judgment. The theory is that each tort-feasоr, through his tortious conduct, has caused a single, indivisible injury to the plaintiff. Plaintiff can look to either or both for relief and is entitlеd to a full satisfaction from one or the other or both. Under the present rules 7 if plaintiff chooses to sue one tort-feasor, the other tort-feasor can be added as a third-party defendant so that the requirement of a joint judgment is satisfied. The statute seeks to do equity between the tort-feasors by equalizing the loss between them without interfering with the plaintiff’s rights.
By our adоption of the rule that the notice provision of CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev' § 9.121) does not apply to a wrongful death, action in which joint tоrt-feasors are involved, the plaintiff in the present case would be able to obtain a joint judgment against all the defеndants including the board of county road commissioners of the county of Oakland, assuming the fact finder determined liability in plaintiff’s favor. ' An opposite result would frustrate the intent of the contribution statute.
We hold that the notice provision of CLS 1961, § 224.21, supra, does not apply to an action for cоntribution between joint tort-feasors pursuant toCLS 1961, § 600.2925 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2925) arising out of a wrongful death claim.
Judgment reversed. Costs to appellant.
Notes
CLS 1961, § 600.2922 (Stat Ann 1962 Eev § 27A.2922).
CLS 1961, § 600.2925(1) (Stat Ann 1962 Eev § 27A.2925[1]):
“Whenever a money judgment has been recovered jointly against 2 or more defendants in an action for bodily injury or death resulting therefrom, or property damage, and such judgment has been paid in part or in full by 1 or more of such defendants, each defendant who has paid morе than his own pro rata share is entitled to contribution with respect to the excess so paid over and above thе pro rata share of the defendant or defendants making such payment. Joint tort-feasors who are summoned in as third party defendants pursuant to court rule may likewise be liable for contribution. Ño person may be compelled to pay any other defendant an amount greater than his pro rata share of the entire judgment.”
CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Eev § 9.121).
CLS 1961, § 600.2922 (Stat Ann 1962 Eev § 27A.2922).
CL 1948, § 242.5 (Stat Ann 1958 Eev § 9.595) provided that no municipality would be liable for any bodily injuries sustained upon public highways except under the provisions of that act.
Racho
v.
City of Detroit
(1892),
GCR1963, 204.