”One, under the ordinary rules of civil liability, is based on the wrongful conduct of the person who allegedly caused the disturbances. The second is a regime of no-fault liability based on the extent of the annoyances suffered by the victim ... ”

The second branch will be ”based on the annoyances suffered by the victim being excessive, rather than on the conduct of the person who allegedly caused them,” the court said.
This doesn't seem like a bad approach on paper, but from the rest of the article I get the impression that it was used to cave in to NIMBY sentiments.

Maybe the people who lived there in '55 should have gotten compensation. After more than two generations down the line, though...