It is also a ridiculously dogmatic question. Many people believe into a fallacy that static typing makes safer programs, for example, and expect that somewhere in the answer.
The only code you can be sure isn't buggy is code that doesn't exist.
* The object returned no longer has member/property x, it is obtained by other means;
* The endpoint returns list of such objects.
Fun thing: in the second case if your code manages to convert input list to a map and assign one returned object to a key that coincides with the removed property and map access looks syntactically the same as property access (a very specific set of assumptions, though), the bug can butterfly quite deep into the code before manifesting :)
Compare static with N tests, vs not static with N tests. In what case would the not static be safer?
The claim that "dynamically type language" allows code to more closely follows the business logic has merits. And you could follow from that to claim that type system could be causing more bugs (ie less safe).