Every nightclub must be equipped with bartenders trained and have written alcohol guidelines. They also need an experienced manager for every shift. In a handbook for employees, these safeguards can look comforting.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is packed, with bartenders serving the same group of people, while the floor manager is dealing with an issue and customers are ordering drinks at various places. Who is responsible for recognizing when a person should not be served alcohol?
This issue is more relevant in the dram shop litigation process than simply determining the quantity of drinks that are sold.
Overservice investigations begin with what Staff Members Could See
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related choices were consistent with the accepted industry norms and the specific circumstances employees confronted.
The fact that a customer may be drunk does not in itself establish that a bartender observed recognizable warning signs during service. Investigations must take into account what the customer’s behavior was and the time of the service, any observations made by personnel, and any evidence.
Surveillance footage can reveal issues with walking, unusual movements or interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide additional details, however recollections of events may differ. It is essential to differentiate the information that investigators had after the incident and what the staff could have reasonably recognized at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t Signify One Drink
The points-of-sale records are useful, but they need experience in hospitality to read. A customer could buy several rounds of beer for friends. A bottle-service purchase could involve several people. Bartenders can take separate orders, without identifying the previous order placed by another employee.
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 in which employees were able intervene or realize that they were drinking. It may also identify areas where the evidence is insufficient to determine who had consumed specific beverages.
Training is only important when it’s on the ground
The certification of employees is important, but it does not automatically determine how a venue worked during a specific shift.
An investigation could examine whether training was current, whether employees knew the correct procedures for intervention and whether supervisors reinforced the establishment’s policies.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years experience working in the hospitality industry, ranging from management of nightclubs and bartending. He also provides drink program consultation.
According to his professional qualifications In addition, he holds 112 server/seller certifications, which include 48 states and the District of Columbia.
The combination of the two lets him examine both the training that employees received as well as their actual choices. For example Bartenders may recognize an issue with his behavior, but may not have guidelines for contacting management or logging a denial of service. The adequacy of supervision can consequently be as significant as the individual behavior of the employee.
Insurance investigations may ask similar inquiries.
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability usually deal with the same operational issues for insurers attorneys, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. Although the terminology used may differ, the case remains focused on alcohol services, employee conduct, management oversight, and training.
A detailed review could comprise incident reports and written policies. This could also include videos employees’ schedules, employee timetables or certification documents. The responsibility of the expert is not to be a force for the person in the process of retaining them. It’s to clarify the reasons for their findings, identify relevant industry practices and accept the significance of limitations.
Experience is a key factor in determining the reasons that drive the documents
Rideout has served as an expert witness in alcohol service and hospitality cases in 11 states. He has acted as a witness for plaintiffs as well as defense lawyers.
His study is a comprehensive look at restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, in addition to resorts, hotels, casinos and other settings for hospitality that serve alcohol on a every day basis. Each place has different staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
Bartenders working in a small restaurant’s dining area might have more opportunities to look over customers than an employee at a counter serving drinks in a nightclub. Knowing the differences can help you place evidence in its appropriate operational context.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill The gaps by making assumptions.
Dram shop laws vary by the jurisdiction in which they are located. Expert statements from operational experts cannot be interpreted as legal advice. The most robust analyses clarify what employees did and the service practices that are required. They also confirm the conclusions that are able to be made from the data.
Sometimes, the records show the absence of established procedures. Some records reveal that employees did not follow the correct procedures or left critical questions unanswered.
It is important to distinguish between the two for lawyers looking at alcohol-related claims. An expert’s opinion is more than a description of the event. It helps the court comprehend the decisions being made inside the establishment, before any one knew how the night would conclude.