A nightclub may be equipped with bartenders who are trained with written alcohol policy, and a knowledgeable manager on each shift. A handbook for employees contains these safeguards can look comforting.
But imagine a packed Saturday night where several bartenders serve the same customers or a floor manager taking care of a disturbance, while customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who is responsible to know when a person is no longer eligible to drink alcohol?
This question can reveal more in a dram store lawsuit other than simply determining how many drinks were sold.
In the beginning, employees will be able recognize signs of an overservice investigation.
Dram Shop expert witnesses will investigate whether the alcohol-related choices made by employees were in line with industry standards and circumstances.
Intoxication is not enough to prove that a bartender knew of the warning indicators. Investigative investigations must take into consideration the behavior of the client as well as the timing of the service, any observations made by staff, and any available evidence.
Surveillance footage may reveal employees interfering with one others, performing unusual movements or having difficulty walking. Witness testimony can provide additional context, though recollections can differ. There is a significant distinction between the knowledge of investigators after an incident and what personnel could reasonably have known at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t Equal One Drink
The point-of-sale record is useful however, their interpretation require experience with hospitality. A single person could buy many rounds of drinks for friends. Many people can be involved in a bottle-service transaction. Bartenders who are separate from each other can take orders without recognizing that another employee served the order.
Alcohol expert witnesses are able to review transaction times, drink quantities, surveillance video, and the records of staffing in order to establish a complete timeline.
This type of analysis can reveal instances where employees were able to spot intoxication or intervene. The analysis could also reveal the instances where there isn’t enough evidence to determine the person who drank a particular drink.
Training Matters Only When It Is Applied to the Floor
The certification of employees is essential but it cannot necessarily determine how a place performed during a particular shift.
The investigation of whether the training is current, whether employees know the correct procedures for intervention, and whether managers have a strong understanding of the policies could be part of the investigation.
Preston Rideout is a seasoned hospitality professional with more than three decades of experience. This includes bartending, management and drink-program consulting.
He also has 112 seller-server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
This combination allows him both to look at the training that employees received as well as the operational decisions they made. Bartenders, for example, might be able to identify a behavior that is concerning but may not be provided with clear guidelines regarding how to report it, or even how to reach management. The quality of supervision could be just as crucial as the individual behavior of the employee.
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. While the language used may differ, the underlying investigation concerns the conduct of staff and alcohol service.
The comprehensive review may include incidents reports, as well as written policies, videos, employee schedules and certification records. The role of an expert isn’t to automatically support the party retaining them. It’s to clarify what evidence is in support, identify relevant industry practices and recognize the limitations that are significant.
Experience helps explain the decisions behind the records
Rideout has worked with defendants and plaintiffs in 11 states, to give testimony on hospitality, alcohol-related and other subjects.
His research focuses on bars, nightclubs, restaurants resorts, casinos and other hospitality settings that have alcohol services as part of the everyday operations. Each place has its own unique supervisory and staffing challenges.
A bartender in a small restaurant’s dining area may be better able to look over customers than an employee at a nightclub service counter. Understanding these differences can help you to put the evidence into its correct operational context.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill Gaps With Assumptions
Dram shop laws vary by region, and operational expert testimony is not to be confused with an official determination of the responsibility. The most thorough analysis will explain what employees did, what recognized service practices called for, and which conclusions the available evidence reasonably is able to back.
Sometimes records show a deviation from the established procedure. They may also indicate that the employee followed proper methods or did not respond to key questions.
This distinction is essential for lawyers who are evaluating cases involving alcohol. Expert opinions are more than a description of the event. It assists the court to understand the decisions being made inside the establishment before anyone knew what would happen next.