A nightclub may have bartenders trained and certified and alcohol policies written down and a knowledgeable manager for each shift. In an employee handbook, these guidelines can appear reassuring.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night when several bartenders are serving the same group, a floor manager is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who is responsible to know when a person is no longer eligible for alcohol?
This type of question could reveal more about a dram store lawsuit other than simply finding out how many drinks have been sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to find out what the staff could see
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether alcohol-related decisions are in accordance with industry norms and the actual conditions that employees encountered.
A customer’s eventual intoxication does not, by itself, establish that a bartender observed recognizable warning signs during service. The investigation should take into account the manner in which the customer behaved as well as the timing of service, observations by staff and evidence available.
Surveillance footage can uncover a lack of ability to walk, odd movements, or interaction with employees. Witness testimony can provide additional details, however recollections of events may differ. It is essential to differentiate between what investigators learned about an incident, and what staff could have reasonably known in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Have to Mean One Drinker
Point-of-sale records are useful however understanding them requires experience in hospitality. Customers can purchase several rounds of beer for friends. Multiple people may be involved in a bottle-service transaction. Separate bartenders might handle orders without knowing what an employee has previously done.
Alcohol experts can look over transaction times, drink quantities, video surveillance, and the staffing records to create a complete timeline.
The analysis could reveal instances when employees were able intervene or realize that they were drinking. The analysis could also reveal that there isn’t enough evidence to pinpoint the individual who consumed a particular drink.
Training Matters Only When It Is Applied to the Floor
While employee certificates are important but they may not show how an organization operated during a certain shift.
A thorough investigation can determine if training was on-point, whether employees understood intervention procedures and whether supervisors reinforced the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout is a specialist in hospitality with more than three decades of expertise. This includes management, bartending and drink-program consulting.
He also has 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional certifications.
This allows him to look at the training that employees received and the decisions they faced. Bartenders, for example, might be able to detect a behaviour that is troubling, but not have clear directions on how to report it or contact management. Therefore, the level of supervision is just as important as an employee’s actions.
Insurance investigations might ask similar inquiries.
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. While the terms used could be different, the investigation is still focused on alcohol service, employee conduct supervision of management, as well as training.
A thorough review could include incident reports and written policies. It could also contain video recordings as well as employee schedules and certification documents. Experts’ role is not to support the person who is retaining them. It’s about describing the reasons for their findings and identify the relevant practices in the industry and identify the significant limitations.
Experience explains the reasons that led to the records
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related and hospitality cases in 11 states, and has worked as both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His research covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments, as well resorts, casinos and other settings in which alcohol is offered on a regular basis. Each place is distinct with regard to staffing and issues with supervision.
The bartender who works in a small dining room of the restaurant might be able to see different aspects of the patrons than a nightclub worker working at a bustling service station. Knowing these distinctions allows you to understand the data into its correct operational context.
It is not possible to fill in gaps by making assumptions
The laws regarding dram-shops are different across all jurisdictions. Operational expert testimony is not the same as a legal decision. The most comprehensive analysis clarifies what employees did as well as what accepted practices for service required, and what conclusions the evidence can be relied upon to support.
Sometimes, the records show an infraction to established procedures. Sometimes, the records show that employees adhered to appropriate procedures or left important questions unanswered.
This distinction is important for lawyers who have to evaluate cases involving alcohol. A reliable expert opinion can do more than describe the incident. It allows the judge to understand what was happening inside the premises even before the end of the night.