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 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 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 tells courts not to overturn a verdict or judgment over a mistake that didn't affect anyone's substantial rights.
Full Text of Rule 61
Plain-English Summary
Not every misstep at trial deserves a do-over. Rule 61 sets the harmless-error standard: an error in admitting or excluding evidence, or any other error or defect in a ruling, order, or in something a court or a party did or failed to do, isn't grounds for a new trial or for disturbing a judgment or order unless refusing to act on it would be inconsistent with substantial justice. The rule directs courts, at every stage of a case, to disregard errors or defects that don't affect the substantial rights of the parties.
In practice, this rule is the backstop behind Rule 59 new-trial motions and Rule 60 relief motions — it reminds courts and parties that identifying a mistake is only the first step. The real question is whether the mistake mattered enough to have changed the outcome or denied someone a fair proceeding. A minor evidentiary slip that had no real bearing on the result doesn't unravel an otherwise sound judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does "harmless error" mean in a civil case?
It means a mistake — in an evidence ruling, an order, or something a court or party did or didn't do — that had no real effect on the outcome. Rule 61 tells courts to disregard those mistakes rather than granting a new trial or disturbing the judgment over them.
Does every mistake at trial entitle me to a new trial?
No. Rule 61 requires a court to leave a judgment alone unless refusing to act on the error would be inconsistent with substantial justice — in other words, unless the mistake affected a party's substantial rights.
How does this rule interact with a Rule 59 motion for a new trial?
Rule 59 lists grounds like evidentiary error or irregularity that can support a new trial. Rule 61 works alongside it as a filter: even if one of those grounds is technically present, the court still disregards it if it didn't affect the parties' substantial rights.
Source & verification. Rule text, Advisory Committee Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Utah Supreme Court. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: harmless error utah civil procedureurcp 61trial mistake not grounds for new trial utahsubstantial rights utah civil caseevidentiary error harmless utah