Bartenders in nightclubs possess a formal education and are able to write alcohol policies down, and have an experienced manager at every shift. These safeguards might look comforting when they are incorporated in the employee handbook.
But imagine a packed Saturday night where several bartenders serve the same customers while a floor supervisor is managing a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds at different places. Who has the responsibility to determine when a person is no longer a candidate for alcohol?
In the context of litigation involving dram shops, this question could be more insightful than finding out how many drinks were sold.
For starters, staff are able to recognize the indications of an overservice investigation.
Dram Shop expert witnesses will analyze whether the alcohol service decisions made by employees were conforming to the industry standard and the circumstances.
Intoxication is not enough to establish that the bartender was aware of warning indications. The investigation should consider the behavior of the customer, the timing of service, the observations of staff as well as evidence.
Surveillance footage could reveal difficulties walking, unusual movements, or interactions with employees. Statements from witnesses can provide additional information, but their recollections could differ. What’s most important to differentiate between is what investigators have learned following an incident, as well as what staff should have been aware of at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t Necessarily Mean One Drink
Understanding the reports at point of sale requires years of prior experience in hospitality. A customer could buy several rounds of beer for friends. Many people can be involved in a bottle-service transaction. Bartenders can process orders in separate locations without recognizing that another employee was serving the order.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
The analysis can reveal instances where employees might have intervened or recognized intoxication. It can also reveal where the evidence is not sufficient to determine who had consumed specific beverages.
The importance of training is when it reaches the floor
The certification of employees is essential but it cannot necessarily determine how a place worked during a specific shift.
A thorough investigation can determine if the training was up-to-date, if employees understood intervention procedures and whether management reaffirmed the policies of the establishment.
Preston Rideout brings over three decades of operational experience in the hospitality industry in this field, which includes bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
Additionally, he holds 112 seller-server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional certifications.
This combination allows him both to review the training staff received, as well as the operational decisions they made. Bartenders, for example, might be able to detect a behaviour that is troubling, but not have clear directions regarding how to report it or how to contact management. The effectiveness of supervision may consequently be as significant as the employee’s personal actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A Liquor liability specialist witness frequently deals with the same operational issues for coverage counsel as well as insurers as well as defense lawyers. While the terms used could differ, the case remains focused on the alcohol service, employee behavior monitoring, management oversight, and training.
A thorough review may include incident reports, written policy documents videos, written policies and employee schedules. It could also include certification documents, and deposition evidence. The responsibility of the expert is not to automatically support the party retaining them. The expert should explain why the data supports, describe pertinent practices within the industry and accept any limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions behind the records
Rideout has been an alcohol service witness and hospitality cases across eleven states. He has worked with both plaintiff and defense attorneys.
His study covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments, as well resorts, casinos and other locations in which alcohol is regularly served. Each environment presents different management structures and supervisory problems.
A bartender working in a tiny dining area in a restaurant may have a different chance to observe customers than an employee working a crowded nightclub service station. Knowing the differences can help place the evidence into its proper operational context.
An opinion that is credible doesn’t fill gaps with assumptions.
Dram shop laws vary by location, and the operational expert testimony is not to be confused with the legality of determining the responsibility. The most robust analyses clarify what employees did and the service practices that are needed. They also provide conclusion that is drawn from the evidence.
Sometimes, records indicate the fact that a change occurred from the accepted procedure. Others records indicate that employees did not follow the right procedures or left crucial questions unanswered.
In the case of attorneys who evaluate alcohol-related claims, that distinction matters. An expert opinion is more than just a report of the event. It helps the court comprehend the decisions being made inside the establishment prior to knowing the outcome of the night.