No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Rule 61.Harmless error.
Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 tells courts to look past procedural mistakes and evidentiary slip-ups that did not hurt anyone, so a new trial, a vacated verdict, or a disturbed judgment is reserved for errors that undermine substantial justice rather than every technical misstep along the way.
Full Text of Rule 61
(dc) District court rule. Rule 61 is not applicable in the district courts except when an appeal is permitted pursuant to Sec. 4-111(d) of the Judicial Article Implementation Act, Act No. 1205, Regular Session 1975.
Amendment History
[Amended eff. 10-15-95.]
Committee Comments
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
The theory of these rules generally is that procedure is a practical means to an end, the requirements of which should be no more exacting than efficiency requires. See Sunderlund, The Problem of Appellate Review, 5 Tex.L.Rev. 126, 146-8 (1927). This rule, which requires courts to ignore procedural errors save where they have affected the substantial rights of the parties, should be read in connection with Rules 1 and 8(f), calling for liberal construction of the rules and of pleadings thereunder, as well as such rules as 4(h), 13(f), 15, 21, 32, 59, and 60, by which amendments of the pleadings, process or service, correction of mistakes, granting of new trials, etc., is all contingent upon whether or not the error was substantial. See 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, §§ 61.02-61.12 (2d ed. 1971); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1351-1357 (1958).
In order for the mandate of this rule to be workable, it must be considered applicable to appellate review of actions in the courts covered by these rules, as well as to the trial of the actions themselves. The cases have so held. Illinois Terminal R. Co. v. Friedman, 208 F.2d 675, 680 (8th Cir.1953), rehearing denied 210 F.2d 229; 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 61.11 (2d ed. 1971); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (1958). The problem should be largely academic in Alabama, for Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, though differently worded, seems to state the same policy as does Rule 61 of these rules.
This Committee rejects certain Federal cases liberally applying the Harmless Error doctrine in their conclusion that judicial commentary on the evidence was error without injury. The likelihood of such cases arising in Alabama should be much less frequent than in Federal practice because these rules, unlike the Federal Rules, contain an express prohibition against judicial commentary on the evidence. See Rule 51.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 61 sets a filter that every claimed error in a civil case must pass through before it can undo a result. It covers two overlapping categories: mistakes in admitting or excluding evidence, and any other error or defect in a ruling, order, or anything done or left undone by the court or the parties. Neither type of mistake, standing alone, justifies a new trial, setting aside a verdict, or vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order.
The rule sets the trigger for relief at a specific point: refusing to act must appear inconsistent with substantial justice. That phrasing puts the burden on the party complaining of error to show the mistake mattered, not just that a mistake occurred. The second sentence reinforces the same idea from the court's own vantage point, directing judges at every stage of a proceeding to disregard errors or defects that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Together the two sentences make harmlessness the default assumption unless real prejudice is shown.
Because the rule speaks broadly of rulings, orders, and things done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties, it operates as a running backstop throughout a case rather than a rule tied to any single motion or stage. It reinforces the broader instruction elsewhere in these rules that pleadings and procedure be construed to do justice rather than to trap litigants on technicalities. It also works alongside the rule barring judges from commenting on the weight of evidence, since a court cannot lean on harmless-error reasoning to excuse the kind of commentary that these rules otherwise forbid outright.
In the district courts, Rule 61 generally does not apply, with a narrow exception tied to appeals permitted under a specific statutory provision governing that court's jurisdiction.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Rule 61 require a party to show to get relief from an error?
The party must show that refusing to grant a new trial, set aside a verdict, or disturb the judgment would be inconsistent with substantial justice, meaning the error affected the substantial rights of a party rather than being a harmless technical misstep.
Does Rule 61 apply only to mistakes about evidence?
No. While it specifically addresses errors in admitting or excluding evidence, it also covers any other error or defect in a ruling, order, or anything done or omitted by the court or the parties during the proceeding.
Who has to raise the harmless-error issue under Rule 61?
The rule directs the court itself, at every stage of the proceeding, to disregard errors that do not affect substantial rights, so the obligation to filter out harmless mistakes rests with the court as well as with the parties.
Does Rule 61 apply in the district courts?
Generally no. Rule 61 does not apply in the district courts except in connection with appeals permitted under a specific provision of the statute implementing Alabama’s Judicial Article.
How does Rule 61 relate to rules about liberal construction of pleadings?
Rule 61 works in the same spirit as the rules calling for liberal construction of pleadings and procedure, since both are aimed at resolving cases on their merits rather than on technical missteps that caused no real harm.
Source & verification. The rule text, amendment history, and Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (Ala. R. Civ. P. 61). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Alabama (Ala. Const. amend. 328, § 6.11). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: harmless error rulesubstantial justice standardno prejudice no new trialdisregard non-prejudicial errorAla. R. Civ. P. 61