Short answer. No, not for keeping it. Article 2188 raises a prima facie presumption of negligence only where the death or injury actually results from the defendant's possession of dangerous weapons or substances, and it does not apply at all where possession or use is indispensable in his occupation or business.

What the law says

There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business.

Civil Code, Article 2188 — Prima Facie Negligence — Dangerous Weapons and Substances. Read the full provision →

The presumption needs an injury that came from the possession

The trigger is not ownership but causation. The article speaks of a presumption arising if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, so there has to be someone hurt and a link between the harm and the fact that this defendant had the thing. Merely keeping a firearm in the house, however uneasy it makes the neighbours, produces no presumption and no claim. On your facts the gun did discharge and a person was injured, which is what brings the article into play. The injury is the condition, not the storage.

Prima facie means answerable, not settled

A prima facie presumption is a starting position rather than a verdict. It means the injured party does not have to begin by proving what the possessor did wrong; the possession plus the resulting injury is enough to put him to an explanation. He may still show that he was not negligent, and if that account is accepted the presumption does no further work. Understand what it buys in practice. It moves the hardest part of the case, which is proving how a weapon you never saw came to go off, across the table to the person who did see it.

The occupational exception

The article carves out possession that is indispensable in his occupation or business. A security guard carrying the firearm his post requires, or an enterprise that must hold a dangerous substance to do what it does, falls outside the presumption. Not immune from liability, but not presumed negligent merely for having the thing. The word doing the work is indispensable. A licence to own is not the same as a need to possess, so a firearm kept at home by someone whose work does not call for one is not covered by the exception even if he holds it lawfully.

If the presumption falls away

The claim does not disappear with it; it reverts to ordinary proof under Article 2176, which obliges whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, to pay for the damage done. That means showing what he actually did or failed to do: how the weapon was stored, whether it was kept loaded, who had access to it. The facts worth fixing now are therefore the same either way. Photograph where the firearm was kept, note who was present in the house, and secure the incident record while recollections are fresh.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.