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 61.01.Harmless error.
Current through June 18, 2026 · Last verified July 9, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61.01 bars courts from granting a new trial, setting aside a verdict, or disturbing a judgment for any error unless refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice, and requires courts to disregard errors that do not affect a party's substantial rights.
Full Text of Rule 61.01
Amendment History
The source reproduced here (current through June 18, 2026) records no amendment to this rule since its original adoption — no History line appears for it in the compiled rules. For the underlying adopting order and any later amendments, see the West’s Rules & Procedures.
Plain-English Summary
Not every mistake in a trial changes the outcome, and Rule 61.01 tells courts not to punish parties for errors that do not matter. If a court admits or excludes evidence incorrectly, or makes some other ruling that turns out to be wrong, that error alone does not entitle anyone to a new trial or to have the verdict or judgment set aside. The question is whether refusing to act would run counter to substantial justice.
The rule also imposes an ongoing duty on the court. At every stage of a case, the court must disregard any error or defect that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. This is the harmless-error principle: courts look past technical missteps and focus on whether the error harmed a party's rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court order a new trial just because it made a mistake?
Not on that basis alone. Rule 61.01 says an error is not grounds for a new trial or for disturbing a judgment unless refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice.
What is harmless error under Kentucky Rule 61.01?
It is an error or defect in a ruling, order, or other act during a proceeding that does not affect a party's substantial rights. The court must disregard this kind of error rather than grant relief for it.
Does an error in admitting or excluding evidence automatically require a new trial?
No. Rule 61.01 states that no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is ground for a new trial or for setting aside a verdict unless refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (Ky. R. Civ. P. 61.01). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Kentucky (Ky. Const. § 116). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 9, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: Rule 61.01 KentuckyCR 61.01harmless error Kentuckysubstantial rights of the partieserror not grounds for new trial