The work asks, reviews and condemns the conception bible and former with which it has sought insight to the conventions legal under the stigma of objectivity, especially in the context of the Tort of Public Administration, contrasted with the debit occurred once this trial, organic, this is, the failure of the service, course extracted in the act antithetic of public authorities in respect of an obligation primary care due, this is a legal standard pre-formed at the time of the action material or administrative act. Alleged that objectivity in the failure of the service, a dichotomy is assumed in its against, The elasticity with which the theory is to amalgamate under the same and never changing elements of charging legal in the hands of the judge always a sole responsibility in the public authorities. And on the other hand, the incidence of the theory in the praxis, pragmatic approach that does not leave to insinuate the opposite, that is, involves disagreements impregnable in the implementation of such assumptions alleged objective. Then, the result of this schism is the uncertainty in the design fault line in the service, as a concept that does not know contours defined, which offers as a symptom of their abstruse constitution a spiritual-subjective implementation, and a questioning inescapable are there lines jurisprudential when in tort is, in particular, in the failure of the service?