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
Part VII: Judgment · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 28, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 bars a new trial, a set-aside verdict, or a disturbed judgment based on any error in admitting or excluding evidence or any other error or defect, unless refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice, and requires the Court to disregard errors that don't affect substantial rights.
Full Text of Rule 61
Plain-English Summary
Rule 61 is the harmless-error backstop that runs through the whole trial process. No error in admitting or excluding evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling, order, or anything the Court or a party did or failed to do, is by itself grounds for a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order.
That protection isn't absolute. The rule lifts it exactly where refusing to grant relief would be inconsistent with substantial justice — so an error that undermines a fair outcome still supports relief, but one that doesn't touch the result gets no traction on its own.
Rule 61's second sentence puts the same principle on the Court affirmatively: at every stage of the proceeding, the Court must disregard any error or defect that doesn't affect the substantial rights of the parties. The rule exists to keep technical missteps — the wrong exhibit briefly admitted, a minor procedural slip — from undoing outcomes that are otherwise sound.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every evidentiary mistake at trial justify a new trial in Delaware?
No. Rule 61 states that no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is ground for a new trial, setting aside a verdict, or disturbing a judgment, unless refusing to take that action would be inconsistent with substantial justice.
What standard does the Court use to decide whether an error matters?
Rule 61 asks whether the error or defect affects the substantial rights of the parties. If it doesn't, the Court must disregard it; if refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice, relief remains available.
Does Rule 61 apply only to evidentiary rulings?
No. It reaches any error or defect in any ruling or order, or in anything done or omitted by the Court or by any of the parties, not just evidence rulings.
At what point in a case does the harmless-error standard apply?
Rule 61 applies at every stage of the proceeding, requiring the Court to disregard errors or defects that don't affect substantial rights throughout, not just at the close of trial.
Source & verification. Rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
Delaware Rules of Civil Procedure for the Superior Court, adopted by the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware. Last verified July 28, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: delaware harmless error rulesubstantial rights standard delaware civil proceduredisregard error not affecting rights delawarerule 61 harmless error superior court