A nightclub could have bartenders trained and certified as well as written alcohol policies and a skilled manager on every shift. A handbook for employees contains these policies can be a source of comfort.
Imagine a busy Saturday night with several bartenders serve the same group. The floor manager is dealing with an issue, and patrons are ordering drinks from several locations. Who has the responsibility to determine when a person has ceased to be eligible for alcohol?
This question can reveal more in a dram store lawsuit than simply finding out how many drinks have been sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin with What Staff Could See
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with established industry practices and the conditions employees encountered.
Intoxication is not enough to establish that the bartender was aware of warning indications. The investigation must consider what the customer’s behavior was and the time of the service, observations by staff, as well as any other evidence.
Surveillance video can reveal an inability to walk, bizarre movements, or interaction with employees. Witness statements may provide more details, however recollections of events may differ. It is crucial to differentiate between what investigators learned about an incident, and what the staff could have reasonably known at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t mean one drinker
Interpreting point-of-sale reports requires experience in hospitality. A single buyer could purchase several rounds for friends. A bottle-service transaction may involve multiple people. Different bartenders could process orders without recognizing that another employee is serving the order.
An Alcohol expert witness can review transaction times, beverage quantities as well as surveillance records and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
This investigation could reveal times when employees were able intervene or realize that they were intoxicated. It can also identify when there isn’t enough evidence to identify the person who consumed a particular drink.
Training is only important when it reaches the floor
While employee certificates are important however, they don’t always reveal how a business operated during a particular shift.
An investigation could examine whether training was on-point, whether employees were aware of the procedures to intervene and whether the managers emphasized the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, which includes bartending and managing nightclubs. He also offers beverage program consulting.
According to his professional qualifications In addition, he holds 112 seller/server certifications that are valid for 48 states and District of Columbia.
The combination allows him to review the training his employees received and the decisions they made. For example Bartenders may recognize an issue with his behavior, but may not have guidelines for contacting management or logging a denial of service. This means that the degree of supervision is just as important as an employee’s behavior.
Insurance investigations may ask similar inquiries.
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. While the language used may differ however, the fundamental issue that is being investigated concerns the conduct of staff and alcohol service.
A comprehensive review may include incidents reports as well as written policies. It may also include videos, employee schedules or certification records. It is not up to an expert to automatically appoint the party that retains them. The expert must clarify what the evidence supports, identify pertinent practices within the industry and accept any limitations.
Experience Helps Explain the Decisions behind the records
Rideout has provided testimony in alcohol-related and hospitality-related matters in 11 states, collaborating with both plaintiff and defense counsel.
The analysis he provides includes restaurants, bars and nightclubs along with casinos, hotels, resorts and other venues for hospitality that serve alcohol on every day basis. Each place has different staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
The bartender in a small dining room at the restaurant might have different opportunities to observe customers than an employee of a nightclub working at a bustling service station. Understanding these differences allows you to place the evidence in the proper operational context.
The credibility of a person’s opinion isn’t filled by making assumptions
Dram shop laws vary by location, and the operational expert testimony should not be confused with the legality of determining liability. The best analysis will explain what the employees did, which recognized service practices were necessary, and what conclusions can be based on the evidence.
Sometimes, the records show some deviation from the established procedure. Some records reveal that employees did not follow the proper procedure or left crucial questions unanswered.
If lawyers are evaluating claims related to alcohol this distinction is critical. Expert opinions are more than a narrative of the event. The court will better understand the decisions taken in the establishment, even though nobody could tell what the result would be.
