Bartenders in nightclubs possess a formal education and have alcohol policy written down, and have an experienced supervisor at each shift. They may be described as reassuring in a manual for employees.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is busy, with several bartenders serving the same number of patrons, and the floor manager is dealing with crowds and customers placing orders for drinks from various locations. Who is accountable to recognize when someone has ceased to be eligible for alcohol?
In the context of litigation involving dram shops, this issue can be more informative than knowing how many bottles were sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to see what the staff might see
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
The presence of alcohol isn’t enough to show that the bartender knew of the warning indications. The investigation must consider what the customer’s behavior was, as well as the timing of service and employees’ observations.
Surveillance footage could expose a person’s inability to walk, unusual movement, or interaction with employees. Witnesses’ testimony can give context to the event even if their memories are differing. The most important thing to differentiate between is the information investigators have learned after an incident, as well as what staff should have known at that moment of the incident.
One Tab isn’t a necessity. One Drink
The point-of-sale record is useful however, understanding them requires hospitality experience. One customer may purchase multiple rounds of drinks to share with their friends. Many people can be involved in the transaction of a bottle. Bartenders may process different orders without knowing the previous order placed by another employee.
A Alcohol expert witness can review the duration of transactions, alcohol consumption recorded by surveillance cameras, as well as staffing records to develop an accurate timeline for service.
The study could uncover instances where employees were able to intervene or recognize that they were intoxicated. It could also help identify instances where the evidence is insufficient to determine who had consumed specific beverages.
Training is Important Only Once It Gets to the Floor
Although certifications of employees are crucial, they do not always reveal how a business operated during a particular shift.
An investigation might examine whether training was current, whether employees knew the correct procedures for intervention and whether supervisors reinforced the establishment’s policies.
Preston Rideout is a specialist in hospitality who has more than three decades of experience. This includes management, bartending and beverage-program consultation.
He also has 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional credentials.
This combination allows him both to review the training staff received as well as operational decisions they had to make. For example, a bartender might spot a problem but not be able to communicate with management or record a refusal of services. As a result, the level of supervision just as important as an employee’s actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A witness from the Liquor liability specialist usually addresses the same operational concerns for coverage counsel and insurers and defense attorneys. Although the language may vary however, the fundamental issue that is being investigated concerns the service of alcohol and the conduct of staff.
A comprehensive review may include incidents reports as well as written policies. It may also include videos as well as employee schedules and certification documents. The responsibility of the expert is not to imply that the company is retaining them. It’s about describing what the evidence supports and to identify industry practices that are relevant, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.
Experience can help explain the reasoning behind the documents
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol service and hospitality cases in eleven states. He has worked as a witness for plaintiffs as well as defense lawyers.
His study covers bars, restaurants and nightclubs as well as casinos, hotels, resorts and other venues for hospitality that serve alcohol on every day basis. Every setting presents its own distinct management structures and supervisory problems.
A bartender in a restaurant’s small dining area might be able to better observe clients than an employee at a nightclub service counter. Understanding these differences can help place the data in the proper context of operation.
Reliable opinions won’t fill gaps with assumptions
Dram shop laws differ by regions. Expert testimony from operational experts cannot be interpreted as a legal decision. The most comprehensive analysis clarifies what employees did, what recognized service practices required, and what conclusions the evidence supports.
Sometimes, records show that a deviation occurred from the standard procedure. They may also show that the employee followed proper practices or did not answer the most important questions.
This distinction is vital for attorneys who are evaluating claims involving alcohol. An expert’s opinion is more than just a report of the incident. The court can better understand the decisions made in the establishment, even though no one could predict what the result would be.