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.
§ 9-11-61.Harmless error
Chapter 11. Civil Practice Act · Article 7. Judgment · Last amended 1966 · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceThis section bars a court from granting a new trial, setting aside a verdict, or disturbing a judgment or order for an evidentiary or procedural error unless refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice, and it directs the court to disregard, at every stage of the case, any error that doesn’t affect a party’s substantial rights.
Full Text of § 9-11-61
Plain-English Summary
This section covers a wide sweep of possible mistakes — errors in admitting or excluding evidence, and any other error or defect in a ruling, order, or in anything the court or the parties did or failed to do. None of those automatically justifies a new trial, setting aside a verdict, or vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. The trigger is narrower: relief is warranted only when refusing to grant it would appear to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.
The second sentence puts an affirmative duty on the court rather than leaving the harmless-error question to come up only when a party raises it. At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard any error or defect that doesn’t affect the substantial rights of the parties. Read together, the two sentences work as a filter: not every misstep in a case is worth undoing what already happened, and a court applying this section has to ask whether the error mattered to the outcome, not just whether one occurred.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every error at trial entitle a party to a new trial in Georgia?
No. A new trial, a set-aside verdict, or a disturbed judgment is warranted only if refusing that relief would be inconsistent with substantial justice.
What kinds of errors does this section cover?
Errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence, and any other error or defect in a ruling, order, or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties.
What must a court do when it identifies a harmless error?
Disregard it — the court must, at every stage of the proceeding, disregard any error or defect that doesn’t affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Does this section apply only to evidentiary rulings?
No. It reaches any error or defect in a ruling or order, or in anything the court or the parties did or omitted, not just decisions about admitting or excluding evidence.
Who decides whether an error was harmless under this section?
The court, applying the substantial-justice and substantial-rights standard the section sets out.
Amendment History
Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 61.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, published by the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Georgia Code Revision Commission / LexisNexis. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: georgia harmless error rulesubstantial justice standard georgiadisregard error not affecting rights georgiaharmless error new trial georgia