A nightclub may have trained bartenders as well as written alcohol policies and a skilled manager at every shift. They may be described as reassuring in an employee handbook.
But imagine a packed Saturday night, where multiple bartenders are serving the same group, a floor manager is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks at different places. Who’s responsible for determining if anyone shouldn’t be drinking at all?
This issue is more relevant when it comes to dram shop litigation than simply determining the quantity of drinks sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to determine what the staff members could be seeing
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with the accepted industry norms and the actual circumstances employees confronted.
A person’s intoxication may alone establish that a bartender observed distinct warning signs in the course of service. The investigation should take into account the behavior of the customer, the timing of service, as well as the bartender’s observations.
Surveillance video may capture employees having conversations with one others, performing unusual movements or having trouble walking. The testimony of witnesses can give additional information, but their recollections could differ. The most important thing to differentiate between is the information investigators learnt after an incident, and what the staff should have known at the time of the incident.
One Tab isn’t a necessity. One Drinker
Point-of-sale records are useful however understanding them requires hospitality experience. Customers can purchase several rounds of beer for friends. Multiple people may be involved in an order for bottle service. Bartenders can take separate orders, without identifying the previous order of a different employee.
A Alcohol expert witness can examine the time of transactions, beverages consumed, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to create a more complete service timeline.
The study could uncover instances in which employees were able intervene or detect the signs of intoxication. This analysis can also be used to find instances where evidence is not enough to determine who drank certain drinks.
Training is only relevant when it reaches the floor
While employee certificates are important however, they don’t always reveal how a business operated during a particular shift.
Investigating whether the training is current, whether employees understand intervention procedures and whether managers have a strong understanding of the policies could be part of the investigation.
Preston Rideout is a specialist in hospitality with over three decades of expertise. This includes management, bartending and drink-program consulting.
Based on his professional credentials, he also holds 112 certifications for seller/server that include 48 states and the District of Columbia.
This combination allows him both to review the training staff received as well as the operational decisions they made. A bartender, for example, may recognize the issue, but not be able to communicate with management or report a denial of service. This means that the level of supervision equally important as the employee’s behavior.
Insurance investigations could pose similar questions.
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. Even though the terms used might be different, the investigation is still focused on alcohol service, employee conduct, management oversight, and training.
A comprehensive review may include incidents reports as well as written policies. They could also comprise videos, employee schedules or certification documents. It’s not the role of the expert to endorse the party that retains them. It is to explain the reasons for their findings, identify relevant industry practices, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.
Experience can help explain the reasoning that are behind the records
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol service and hospitality cases in eleven states. He has acted on behalf of both plaintiffs and defense lawyers.
His study covers bars, nightclubs and hotels and resorts, as well as casinos, and other venues where alcohol is regularly served. Every setting presents its own distinct structure of staffing and challenges for supervisors.
Bartenders working in a small dining area at a restaurant might have different opportunities to observe customers compared to employees at a busy nightclub service station. Understanding these differences allows you to place the evidence into its correct operational context.
The credibility of opinions doesn’t fill in gaps using assumptions
The laws for a dram shop differ in each state. Operational expert testimony is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The strongest analysis explains the actions of employees as well as what accepted practices for service required, and what conclusions the evidence can be relied upon to support.
Sometimes, the records reveal that an error has been made from the prescribed procedure. They might also prove that an employee adhered to the proper procedures or didn’t answer the most important questions.
It is important to distinguish between the two for lawyers evaluating alcohol-related claims. A useful expert opinion does more than describe the incident. It helps the court comprehend the decision-making process inside the establishment prior to knowing how the night would conclude.
