Every nightclub should be equipped with trained bartenders as well as written alcohol guidelines. Also, they should have a knowledgeable manager for every shift. These safeguards could be reassured in a manual for employees.
But imagine a packed Saturday night when several bartenders are serving the same group and a floor manager is handling a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds from different locations. Who is accountable for recognizing when a person should not be served alcohol?
In the context of litigation involving dram shops, the question may be more revealing than simply the number of drinks sold.
To begin with, staff will be able recognize signs of an overservice investigation.
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether alcohol-service decision were consistent with industry norms and the real-life circumstances employees were confronted with.
The presence of alcohol in a person doesn’t prove, by itself that the bartender spotted warning signs while serving. The investigation should look at the behavior of the customer, the time of service, and employees’ observations.
Surveillance footage can show an inability to walk, odd movements, or interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide further background, however their perceptions may differ. What’s most important to discern between is what investigators have learned after an incident, and what the staff should have known at that time.
One Tab Doesn’t Always Mean One Drink
Interpreting point-of-sale reports requires knowledge of hospitality. A customer could buy several rounds of beer for friends. Bottle-service transactions may include more than one individual. Separate bartenders may complete orders without knowing the name of other employees previously did.
An Alcohol expert witness is able to examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and the staffing record to determine an accurate timeline for service.
The analysis will reveal instances in which employees might have intervened or recognized intoxication. This analysis can also show the instances where there isn’t enough evidence to identify the person who consumed the particular drink.
Training is only important when it reaches the floor
Although certifications of employees are crucial, they do not always show how an organization operated during a certain shift.
Investigations can determine whether or not employees are properly trained, if they are aware of the procedures for intervention, and if managers have strengthened policies.
Preston Rideout is a professional in hospitality with over three decades of experience. This includes bartending, management and beverage-program consultation.
He also holds 112 seller-server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
The combination of the two allows him to look at both the training that employees received as well as their operational decisions. For instance Bartenders may recognize concerning behavior but lack clear direction about contacting management or recording a refusal of service. It is therefore important to assess the supervisor’s capacity to oversee.
Insurance investigations may pose similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. The terminology may differ, but the underlying investigation is still about alcohol service, employee conduct education, training, and supervision of management.
A detailed review could comprise incidents reports as well as written policies. It could also contain video recordings, employee schedules or certification records. It’s not the role of the expert to automatically endorse the person who retains them. The expert’s responsibility is to provide an explanation of the findings, identify industry practices and acknowledge the limitations that are significant.
Experience helps explain the decisions that are behind the Records
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related and hospitality-related matters across eleven states, working as both defense and plaintiff counsel.
The analysis he provides examines restaurants, bars, and nightclubs as well as resorts, hotels, casinos and other hospitality settings that serve alcohol on a daily basis. Each place has different organizational structures and supervisory issues.
A bartender in a smaller dining area of a restaurant may be able to see different aspects of customers compared to a nightclub employee working at a bustling service station. Understanding these differences can help you to place the evidence within the correct context of operation.
The credibility of opinions doesn’t fill in gaps using assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different in each jurisdiction. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the same as a legal decision. The most effective analysis will clarify what the employees did as well as the recognized standards of service that were needed, and what conclusions are reasonable on the basis of the evidence.
Sometimes, documents show a deviation from established procedures. Other records show employees didn’t adhere to the correct procedures or left crucial questions unanswered.
It is vital to differentiate between the two for lawyers to evaluate alcohol-related lawsuits. A professional opinion is more than a description of the event. It aids the court in understanding the decision-making process inside the establishment before anyone knew how the night would conclude.