Every nightclub must have trained bartenders and written alcohol policies. They also need an experienced manager for each shift. These safeguards might look comforting when they are incorporated in the employee handbook.
Imagine a Saturday night that is full of bartenders serving the exact same group of people, while an employee on the floor manages an issue and customers are ordering drinks at various places. Who is responsible for recognizing that a person shouldn’t consume alcohol?
In dram shop litigation, that question can be more informative than the number of drinks sold.
The first step in a probe into overservice is to determine what staff members might be seeing.
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 is not proof, by itself that the bartender noticed warning signs while serving. The investigation should consider what the customer’s behavior was, as well as the service timing, and employees’ observations.
Surveillance footage may reveal an inability to walk, unusual movements, or interaction with employees. Statements from witnesses may provide more details, however recollections of events may differ. The most important thing to discern between is what investigators learnt after an incident, and what staff should have known at the time.
One tab isn’t always the same as One Drink
The points-of-sale records can be helpful, but they require a background in hospitality to interpret. A customer might purchase several rounds of beverages for their friends. There could be multiple people involved in an order for bottle service. Bartenders may process different orders, without identifying the previous order of another employee.
An Alcohol expert witness will examine the time of transactions, beverages consumed in surveillance footage, as well staffing records in order to establish more comprehensive service timelines.
This investigation could reveal times when employees were able intervene or recognize the signs of intoxication. This analysis can also show when there isn’t enough evidence to establish the person who consumed one particular beverage.
Training is only relevant when it is completed on the floor.
Although employee certifications are essential however, they don’t always reveal how a business operated during a certain shift.
Investigating whether the training is current, whether employees know the correct procedures for intervention, and if managers reinforce the policies can be part of an investigation.
Preston Rideout is a seasoned hospitality professional who has more than three decades of experience. This includes bartending, management and drink-program consulting.
Professionally, his qualifications show that he is the owner of 112 seller-server certificates for 48 states and the District of Columbia.
The combination allows him to look at the training that employees received and the operational decisions they had to make. For instance, a bartender might recognize concerning behavior but lack clear directions on how to communicate with management or recording a refusal of service. The quality of supervision could be just as crucial as the employee’s individual actions.
Insurance Investigations May ask Similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness typically deals with the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel and defense lawyers. While the terms used could be different, the probe remains focused on alcohol services, employee conduct, management oversight, and training.
A thorough review may include incident reports, written guidelines, video recordings employees’ schedules, certificates, records, as well as deposition testimony. Experts’ role is not to support the person retaining them. It’s to clarify what evidence is in support and identify the relevant practices in the industry and identify the significant limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions that drive the documents
Rideout has testified in alcohol-service and hospitality matters in 11 states, collaborating with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His research covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments and resorts, as well as casinos and other settings in which alcohol is frequently served. Each place has different structure of staffing and challenges for supervisors.
A bartender in a tiny restaurant’s dining area may have a better opportunity to watch customers than a worker at a counter serving drinks in a nightclub. Understanding those differences helps place the evidence within its proper context.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill Gaps With Assumptions
The laws governing a shop’s ramifications differ in each state. Operational expert testimony is not the same as a legal decision. The most comprehensive analysis clarifies what employees did, what recognized service practices required, and what conclusion the evidence supports.
Sometimes, the documents reveal a departure from established procedures. They may also show that an employee complied with the correct guidelines or failed to answer crucial questions.
When lawyers evaluate claims involving alcohol it is important to distinguish between the two. A good expert opinion does more than describe the incident. The court will better understand the decision-making process in the establishment, even if no one could predict what the final outcome would be.