Every nightclub should have trained bartenders and written alcohol policies. Also, they should have a knowledgeable manager for every shift. A handbook for employees contains these safeguards can look comforting.
But imagine a packed Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same group while a floor supervisor is handling a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who is responsible for recognizing when a person should not consume alcohol?
This aspect is more crucial in the context of dram shops litigation, rather than simply determining the quantity of drinks being sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to see what the staff might see
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether alcohol-service decision were consistent with industry standards and the actual conditions that employees encountered.
The presence of alcohol isn’t enough to establish that the bartender knew of the warning indications. The investigation should consider what the customer’s behavior was, as well as the timing of service, as well as employees’ observations.
Surveillance footage can uncover a lack of ability to walk, unusual movement, or interaction with employees. Witness statements can provide additional details, though their memories may differ. What’s most important to differentiate between is what investigators have learned following an incident, and also what staff should have known at that time.
One Tab Doesn’t Signify One Drink
The point-of-sale record is useful however, their interpretation require experience with hospitality. A single buyer could purchase several rounds for their friends. A bottle-service transaction may involve several people. Separate bartenders may complete orders without knowing the name of another employee previously served.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
The analysis could reveal instances when employees were able intervene or acknowledge the fact that they were drunk. It can also be used to find instances where evidence is not sufficient to determine who consumed certain beverages.
It is important to train only when it’s on the ground
The certifications of employees are vital however, they don’t establish how a venue worked during a specific shift.
The investigation of whether the training is current, if employees are aware of intervention procedures, and if managers are able to reinforce procedures can form part of the investigation.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, including bartending and managing nightclubs. He also offers beverage program consulting.
His professional qualifications also show that he holds 112 seller server certificates for 48 states and the District of Columbia.
This allows him to review the training staff received as well as operational decisions they had to make. Bartenders, for example might be able recognize a behavior that is concerning but may not have clear directions on how to report the incident or reach management. In the end, the degree of supervision is just as important as an employee’s actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
Expert witnesses in the field of liquor liability usually is able to address the same operational concerns for coverage counsel, insurers, and defense attorneys. The terms may vary but the primary investigation still concerns alcohol service, staff behavior education, training, and management oversight.
A thorough review could comprise incident reports, written guidelines, video recordings employee schedules, certification documents, and deposition evidence. The responsibility of the expert is not to automatically support the party who is retaining them. The duty of an expert is to communicate the results that they have discovered, to determine the best practices for industry and recognize meaningful limitations.
Experience explains the reasoning that are behind the Records
Rideout has worked with defendants and plaintiffs in 11 states to testify in hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related subjects.
His analysis includes bars, nightclubs and hotels along with resorts, casinos and other settings in which alcohol is offered on a regular basis. Each place has different staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
A bartender serving a small dining area in a restaurant may be able to observe the customers than an employee working a crowded nightclub’s service station. Understanding those differences helps place the evidence in its proper operational context.
Credible opinions don’t fill in holes with assumptions
Dram shop laws vary by the jurisdiction and expert testimony should not be confused with an official determination of liability. The most comprehensive analyses provide a clear explanation of the actions of employees and the types of service practices needed. They also confirm the conclusion that is made from the data.
Sometimes, records indicate the fact that a change is observed from accepted procedure. They could also reveal that the employee was following proper procedures or didn’t answer key questions.
This distinction is vital for lawyers who have to evaluate cases involving alcohol. A professional’s advice is more useful than just describe what happened. The court will better understand the decisions made in the establishment, even if nobody could tell what the result would be.