[brief] During the pendency of the action and construction of the road project, the condemnor's contractor physically damaged the owner's dam pipe and pond on the remaining property.  The trial court's award of just compensation included the cost to repair those damages.  The condemnor appealed claiming that such damages were the result of the contractor's negligence and not recoverable in the condemnation action.  The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that, in determining damages in a condemnation action:  *The court should consider any and all damages which will foreseeably follow from the proper construction of the project, including any damage to the remainder which is a necessary, natural and proximate result of the* taking.  (citations omitted.)  The use to be made of the land taken is to be considered with regard to its effect on the remaining land, and the fact that injuries are caused by the construction activities of the contractor is not a bar to recovery so long as the damages foreseeably follow such construction activities and are a necessary, natural and proximate result of the taking.  (citations omitted.)  Expenses required to cure injuries caused to the remaining land are not recoverable as such, but are merely evidence of elements in the decrease in market value, of which they may be accurate measure. ” (citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)  [370 A. 2d at 284.]  The court remanded for a new trial because the trial court did not expressly conclude the damages were a necessary, natural and proximate result of the taking and a reasonably foreseeable result of the taking.  See also Albahary v. City of Bristol, 886 A. 2d 802 Conn. (2005).  Here, the vibrations from the delivery dumping and placement of the innumerable multi-ton boulders to construct the new seawall physically damaged the [...] house.  The project reasonably foresaw the possibility of the actual damages and implemented vibrations monitoring during the seawall construction activities.  There is no claim here that the project contractor was somehow negligent in any way.  The damages which resulted were a necessary, natural, and proximate result of the taking and the project.  Mr. [...] is entitled to just compensation for the physical damages to his house from the project construction.  An owner should not be forced to defend the condemnation action and also separately have to sue for project damages that the public project foresaw and actually occurred.  The physical damages to the house were identifiable and the cost-to-cure provided a reasonable basis to calculate the reduced fair market value of the remainder.  Mr. [...] was not seeking incidental losses difficult, remote, or uncertain to measure.  The damages from the seawall project construction were anticipated, monitored and actually happened, and reduced the market value of his house.  To deny the owner the full just compensation to which he is constitutionally entitled provided a windfall to the condemnor.  For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the court below erred in excluding just compensation for the physical damages to the house during construction of the seawall.