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 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 tells courts to ignore any error that does not affect a party's substantial rights, so a new trial or a change to a judgment is warranted only when refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice.
Full Text of Rule 61
Notes
Reporter’s Notes: This rule is identical to Federal Rule 61. Although on its face the rule appears to apply only to trial courts, the federal courts apply identical principles on appeal. See 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (Wright ed. 1958). Former Supreme Court Rules, Pt. I, R. 9, very similar in substance, applied to appeals and to petitions for new trial in the Supreme Court. See Reporter’s Notes to Rule 59. The Vermont trial courts applied the same standards in the absence of rule. See Morse v. Weymouth, 28 Vt. 824 (1856); Beckwith v. Middlesex, 20 Vt. 593 (1848).
Plain-English Summary
Rule 61 is short, but it shapes every argument built on Rules 59 and 60. It tells a court that no error or defect — in admitting or excluding evidence, in a ruling or order, or in anything a court or a party did or failed to do — is by itself grounds for a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for disturbing a judgment. The error has to matter enough that refusing to act would run against substantial justice.
The second sentence pushes the same point further: at every stage of a case, the court must disregard any error or defect that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Put together, the rule means a technical misstep — a sustained objection that should have been overruled, a minor procedural slip — is not, on its own, a ticket to a new trial or a reopened judgment. The complaining party has to show the error mattered to the outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every trial error justify a new trial?
No. Rule 61 states that no error in admitting or excluding evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling, order, or anything done or omitted, is grounds for a new trial or for disturbing a judgment unless refusing to act appears inconsistent with substantial justice.
What is the standard for disregarding an error?
Whether the error affects the substantial rights of the parties. The rule directs the court, at every stage of the proceeding, to disregard any error or defect that does not.
Does Rule 61 apply to evidentiary rulings only?
No. It covers errors in admitting or excluding evidence and errors or defects in any ruling, order, or anything done or omitted by the court or the parties.
How does Rule 61 interact with a motion for a new trial under Rule 59?
It supplies the backstop standard: even if a party can point to a genuine error at trial, Rule 61 blocks relief unless the error was serious enough that ignoring it would be inconsistent with substantial justice.
Who has to show that an error affected substantial rights?
The rule places the focus on the party seeking relief from the verdict, ruling, order, or judgment to show the error was not harmless — the court's obligation is to disregard errors that fall short of that threshold at every stage of the case.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Reporter's Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Vermont Supreme Court. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: harmless error rule vermontvt rule 61substantial justice standard vermontharmless error civil procedure