Short answer. No — not under Article 1951. That provision makes a bailor liable only when he knew of the flaw and failed to warn the borrower. Genuine ignorance of the defect removes this specific basis for damages, though the injured borrower may still have a separate claim if the bailor was careless in some other way.
What the law says
The bailor who, knowing the flaws of the thing loaned, does not advise the bailee of the same, shall be liable to the latter for the damages which he may suffer by reason thereof.
Civil Code, Article 1951 — The Lender's Liability for Known Flaws. Read the full provision →
Knowledge Is the Trigger, Not Fault
Article 1951 singles out a bailor who "knows" the thing is flawed and stays silent about it. Liability under this specific provision therefore turns on actual, subjective knowledge at the moment of lending, not on whether a more careful owner would have discovered the problem first. If the bailor genuinely had no idea the lawnmower's blade was loose or that the ladder's rung was cracked, he did not commit the particular wrong that this article is written to punish, however unfortunate the resulting injury turned out to be for the person who borrowed it.
Why the Line Is Drawn at Silence, Not Ownership
Commodatum is a gratuitous favor between people, so the Code does not go so far as to demand that a bailor inspect every item before handing it over for free. What the article forbids is something narrower and worse: knowing a thing is dangerous and choosing to say nothing about it while lending it out anyway. A bailor who lends in good faith, genuinely unaware of any hidden flaw in the thing, has not withheld a warning he was ever in a position to give in the first place. Requiring anything more of an owner who is doing a neighbor a favor for free would discourage exactly the kind of everyday lending this title of the Code is meant to accommodate.
What the Borrower Can Still Do
Ruling out Article 1951 does not necessarily end the matter for an injured borrower. If the bailor was careless in some other, unrelated way — for example, storing the mower somewhere he had reason to suspect tampering, or ignoring an earlier complaint about the same defect from someone else — the borrower may still have a claim for damages under the Civil Code's general provisions on quasi-delict, which look at negligence rather than actual knowledge. That is a different legal theory with its own elements to prove, but it remains open even when this specific article does not apply.
The Practical Difference for a Dispute
In a lawsuit, the borrower carries the burden of proving that the bailor actually knew of the defect and chose not to disclose it; hindsight alone, such as arguing the bailor "should have checked" beforehand, is not enough by itself to establish liability under this particular article. Documented complaints, prior repair records, or an outright admission by the bailor are the kind of evidence that typically ends up deciding these disputes, since actual knowledge is rarely something a defendant volunteers once an injury is already on the table.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1951 — The Lender's Liability for Known Flaws
- Civil Code, Article 1933 — Loan: Commodatum and Mutuum