363-64, 488 A.2d 442, 442-43 (1985) (denying compensation for business loss resulting from highway project despite the State’s taking of a portion of land behind the property owner’s business); Spear, 122 Vt. at 408, 175 A.2d at 513 (denying compensation for business loss resulting from relocation of highway despite the taking of a piece of land across the road from the property owner’s business). The rule established by Sand Bar, Spear, Fiske, and Gibson Estate is clear: when the loss of a piece of property results directly in further losses to a business, the owner is entitled to compensation, but when the business loss arises from the rerouting of traffic, and not from the loss of the la Highway & Transp. Comm’n v. Jim Lynch Toyota, Inc., 830 S.W.2d 481, 485 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (<HOLDING>) (quotations omitted). ¶ 10. We conclude that
holding that a landowner whose property was taken in a highway widening project could recover only for the lost land and not for losses caused by traffic islands constructed as part of the same project holding that a landowner who lost a strip of property to a highway widening project could not recover losses caused by concurrent placement of a median strip because when less than the entire property is taken compensation for damage to the remainder can be awarded only if such damage is caused by the taking and cjonstruction of the median not the taking caused the alleged damage holding that a landowner could recover for placement of a median strip that could not have occurred but for the taking of the landowners property because the inquiry is how much has the particular public improvement decreased the fair market value of the property taking into consideration the use for which the land was taken and all the reasonably probable effects of its devotion to that use holding that loss of access resulting from a median strip constructed as part of a highway widening project was a proper consideration because any factor that has a present quantifiable effect on the market value of the property is proper as an element of damages holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market