Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)

Citation: Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)
Parent Document: Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1975-05-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/326412/camalier-buckley-madison-inc-v-t... ↗

Full Text

1,139 chars

Camalier also points out that neither party introduced any evidence to show whether it attempted to relocate its shop in similar space outside the hotel building, or to show how expectably it would have fared financially had it been successful in doing so. There was, of course, the new shop site in the office building, but its, equivalence to the original site has not yet been determined, and an injured party is at liberty to reject an alternative dissimilar to the original. Bottorff v. Ault, 374 F.2d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 1967); Green v. Kaynar Mfg. Co., 369 F.2d 375, 376 (9th Cir. 1966); Williams v. Robinson, 158 Ark. 327, 250 S.W. 14, 15, 28 A.L.R. 734 (1923); Hussey v. Holloway, 217 Mass. 100, 104 N.E. 471, 472 (1914); Torson Constr. Co. v. Grant, 251 Ky. 800, 66 S.W.2d 79, 82 (1933); Holloway v. Levin, 107 Vt. 396, 180 A. 889, 890 (1935). The burden of proving circumstances giving rise to the duty to mitigate rests upon him who asserts it, Brewer v. Drain, 192 A.2d 532, 534 (D.C.App.1963); Brooks v. Capital Fleets, Inc., 123 A.2d 916, 917 (D.C.Mun.App.1956); Associated Stations, Inc. v. Cedars Realty & Dev. Corp., supra

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text