Every nightclub should have trained bartenders and written alcohol policies. Also, they should have an experienced manager for every shift. They can appear as at times as reassuring if they are included in an employee manual.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is crowded, with several bartenders serving the same number of patrons, and a floor manager deals with crowds and customers placing orders for drinks from various locations. Who will be responsible to determine when a person is no longer eligible for alcohol?
This question can reveal more in a dram store lawsuit than just finding out how many drinks were sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin with What Staff Could See
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
The intoxication of a customer cannot prove on its own, that the bartender saw warning signs while serving. The investigation must consider the manner in which the customer behaved as well as the timing of service, observations by staff as well as evidence.
Surveillance footage can show an inability to walk, bizarre movement, or interaction with employees. The statements of witnesses can provide more context, though recollections can differ. What’s important to discern between is what investigators learned from an incident, and what the staff should have known at that time of the incident.
One Tab Doesn’t Equal One Drink
The point-of-sale record is useful however, understanding them requires experience in hospitality. A single customer might purchase multiple rounds of wine for friends. Multiple people may be involved in bottle-service transactions. Bartenders may process different orders without knowing the previous order of a different employee.
Alcohol experts are able to examine the transaction times and beverage quantities as well as the surveillance footage and information on staffing in order to establish a better time-line for service.
This analysis may reveal moments when employees were able to intervene or detect the fact that they were drunk. It may also identify areas where there is no evidence to determine who had consumed specific drinks.
The Floor is where Training Matters.
The certification of employees is essential, but it does not immediately determine the way a facility was run during a particular shift.
An investigation may consider whether training was on-point, whether employees were aware of the procedures to intervene, and whether managers reinforced the company’s policies.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, which includes management of nightclubs and bartending. He also provides drink program consultation.
He also holds 112 seller-server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
This combination allows him both to examine the training employees received as well as operational decisions that they faced. For example a bartender could be aware some issues, but not have clear instructions on how to contact management or recording a refusal of service. This means that the level of supervision equally important as the employee’s behavior.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability typically address the same operational questions for insurers attorneys, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. While the terms used could differ, the case remains focused on the alcohol service, employee behavior control, management oversight, as well as training.
A thorough review may include incident reports, written policy documents videos, written policies and employee schedules. It could also include certification records, and deposition witness testimony. It is not an expert’s responsibility to defend an individual who would like them. The expert’s responsibility is to present the findings as well as identify the practices of the industry and recognize meaningful limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions behind the records
Rideout has testified in alcohol-service and hospitality cases in eleven states, working with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His analysis addresses bars, nightclubs, restaurants resorts, casinos and other hospitality settings where alcohol service is part of the daily operation. Each environment is unique in terms of staffing requirements and the challenges of supervision.
A bartender who works in a small restaurant’s dining area might be able to better observe customers more than a staff member of a counter service at a nightclub. Knowing these distinctions allows you to place the evidence in its proper context.
An opinion that is credible doesn’t fill The gaps by making assumptions.
The laws governing a shop’s ramifications differ by region, and operational expert testimony is not to be confused the legality of determining responsibility. The most accurate analysis will reveal the activities of the employees and what recognized practices were in place, and which conclusions can be based on the evidence.
Sometimes the records reveal an infraction to established procedures. In other cases, they prove that employees followed the appropriate methods or left critical questions unanswered.
When lawyers evaluate claims involving alcohol, that distinction matters. An expert opinion is more than a description of the event. It allows the court to be aware of what was happening in the establishment even before the end of the night.
