The interpretation of Article 2329 of the Civil Code have had a stormy history, ranging from those who understand this rule as a presumption of guilt, strict liability or a simple iteration of the principle of fault. Analysis from the perspective of the Chilean and Colombian law sheds light on how inaccurate is to assert the existence of a regime for alleged fault in the Colombian case, which must be confessed as one of strict liability; while in the Chilean case the dilemma is to accept the presumption of guilt or reject it. The criterion of dangerous activity appears on a shared basis as a guide to establish the presumption. To scrutinize its meaning, away from metaphors or rhetorical exercises, is useful for Article 2329 (Article 2356 of Colombian Civil Code) application, either to presume guilt in the Chilean case, or apply an objective regime in Colombian law.