Every nightclub should have trained bartenders and written alcohol policies. They also need an experienced manager for every shift. They may be described as reassuring in a handbook for employees.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same group, a floor manager is taking care of a disturbance, while customers are ordering drinks from various locations. Who will decide when a person should not receive alcohol?
In the case of dram shop litigation this question could be more insightful than knowing how many bottles were sold.
The first step in investigating overservice is to see what staff members might be seeing.
Dram Shop expert witnesses will determine if the alcohol service decision-making of employees was conforming to industry standards and circumstances.
The presence of alcohol in a person does not establish, on its own, that the bartender saw warning signs when serving. The investigation should look at the behavior of the customer, the timing of service, as well as the observations of staff.
Surveillance video may reveal employees interfering with one with each other, performing strange movements or unable to walk. Witnesses’ testimony can add context to the situation regardless of whether their own memories are differing. What’s most important to differentiate between is what investigators have learned following an incident, and also what staff should have known at that moment of the incident.
One Tab Doesn’t Necessarily Mean One Drink
The point-of sale records can be helpful, but they require hospitality experience to interpret. Customers can purchase several rounds of beer for their friends. A number of people could be involved in a bottle-service transaction. Bartenders can process orders in separate locations without recognizing that a different employee was serving the order.
A Alcohol expert witness can review transaction times, beverage quantities as well as surveillance records and the staffing record to determine more comprehensive service timelines.
The analysis will reveal instances where employees might have intervened, or recognized that they were intoxicated. It also can reveal instances when the evidence isn’t sufficient to determine who had consumed specific drinks.
Training Matters Only When It Is Applied to the Floor
Certifications for employees are essential, but they don’t automatically determine how a place was run during a specific shift.
An investigation may consider whether training was on-point, whether employees were aware of intervention procedures and whether management reaffirmed the establishment’s policies.
Preston Rideout is a specialist in hospitality who has more than three decades of expertise. This includes management, bartending and consulting on beverage programs.
According to his professional qualifications, he also holds 112 seller/server certificates that cover 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 the problem but have no clear directions on how to communicate with management or documenting a refusal of service. Therefore, the level of supervision is just as important as an employee’s behavior.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. The terms may vary but the fundamental investigation remains focused on the alcohol service, conduct of staff, training, and oversight of management.
The complete review might include incidents reports, as well as written policies, videos, employee schedules and documents for certification. It’s not the role of the expert to automatically approve the entity that they are retained by. The responsibility of the expert is to explain the findings to identify practices in the industry and recognize meaningful limitations.
Experience explains the reasons behind the Records
Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality cases in 11 states. He has worked with both plaintiff and defense lawyers.
The analysis he provides examines restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, in addition to casinos, hotels, resorts and other settings for hospitality which serve alcohol on a regular basis. Every setting is different in terms of staffing and supervision challenges.
Bartenders working in a small dining area in a restaurant may have a different chance to observe customers than employees at a busy nightclub’s service station. Understanding the distinctions will help you place evidence in its proper context.
Reliable opinions won’t fill gaps with assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different in each jurisdiction. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The most robust analyses clarify what employees did and the service practices that are required. They also support the conclusions that are able to be drawn from the evidence.
Sometimes, records indicate that a deviation was made from the established procedure. They may also show that an employee adhered to the proper guidelines or failed to answer the most important questions.
It is essential to distinguish between these two types of lawyers when looking at alcohol-related claims. Expert opinions are more than just a report of the incident. It helps the court understand the decisions that were made in the establishment, before any one knew how the night would end.