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
Group VII: Judgment · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 tells a court to disregard any error or defect in a ruling, order, or proceeding unless letting the judgment stand would be inconsistent with substantial justice, so a case is not retried over a mistake that made no difference to the outcome.
Full Text of Rule 61
Notes
Note: This is the language of Federal Rule 61, and retains the effect of Code § 15-27-140.
Plain-English Summary
Every trial produces some friction — an objection sustained that should have been overruled, a ruling that could plausibly have gone the other way. Rule 61 keeps mistakes like that from derailing a case that was otherwise decided on the merits. It directs the court, at every stage of a proceeding, to disregard any error or defect that does not affect a party's substantial rights.
The rule calls out evidentiary rulings by name — no error in admitting or excluding evidence is by itself grounds for a new trial — but its reach is broader than evidence. It covers any ruling, order, or omission by the court or by the parties, in any part of a civil case. The measure is whether refusing to grant a new trial, or to set aside a verdict, or to disturb a judgment would be inconsistent with substantial justice. If the error did not change what the outcome should have been, the judgment stands.
In practice, this is the rule a court cites when it denies a motion for a new trial despite an acknowledged misstep somewhere in the proceedings. It puts the burden on the party claiming error to show the mistake mattered to the result, not merely that it happened.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Rule 61 let a judge ignore mistakes made during trial?
No. The judge is still expected to rule correctly. Rule 61 comes into play afterward, when a party asks the court to undo a verdict or judgment because of an error — it measures the error against the harm it caused rather than treating every misstep as fatal.
What does it mean for an error to affect a party's substantial rights?
It means the mistake was significant enough that it could have changed the outcome of the case. An error that is technical or that had no bearing on the result does not meet that bar under Rule 61.
How does Rule 61 interact with a motion for a new trial under Rule 59?
Does Rule 61 apply only to jury trials?
No. Its language covers any ruling, order, or omission by the court or the parties in a civil proceeding, so it applies to bench trials and pretrial rulings as much as to jury trials.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: harmless error South Carolinanew trial harmless errorsubstantial rights ruleevidentiary error not grounds for new trialdisregard error rule