Nightclubs can include bartenders with training with written alcohol policy, as well as a skilled manager for each shift. They can appear as reassuring when they are included in an employee manual.
But imagine a packed Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same group, a floor manager is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds at different places. Who is accountable for recognizing that a person shouldn’t drink alcohol?
In the case of dram shop litigation that question can be more insightful than finding out how many drinks were sold.
For starters, staff will be able recognize signs of an overservice investigation.
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related choices were consistent with established industry practices and the conditions employees confronted.
Intoxication alone is not enough to prove that the bartender knew of the warning indications. The investigation must consider what the customer’s behavior was and the time of the service, the observation of staff members, and any other evidence.
Surveillance video may reveal employees interfering with one with each other, performing strange movements or having difficulty walking. The testimony of witnesses can give additional context, although recollections may differ. It is essential to differentiate between what the investigators were aware of about an incident, and what personnel could have reasonably expected to know in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Equal One Drink
Understanding the reports at point of sale requires years of an understanding of hospitality. A customer can buy several rounds of beer for their friends. Bottle-service transactions may be performed by more than one person. Separate bartenders could take orders and not know what an employee has previously done.
A Alcohol expert witness is able to examine the duration of transactions, alcohol consumption, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to create a more complete service timeline.
The analysis may reveal instances in which employees might have acted or detected intoxication. The analysis may also indicate that there isn’t enough evidence to identify the individual who consumed an alcohol drink.
The importance of training is until it reaches the floor
The certification of employees is crucial however, it doesn’t automatically determine how a venue was run during a particular shift.
Examining whether the training is up-to-date, whether employees know the correct procedures for intervention, and whether managers have a strong understanding of the guidelines can be a part of the investigation.
Preston Rideout brings more than three decades of operational experience in the hospitality industry to his job, including bartending, management of nightclubs, and beverage-program consulting.
Based on his professional credentials In addition, he holds 112 server/seller certifications, which encompass 48 states as well as the District of Columbia.
The combination of both permits him to examine both the training that employees received as well as their actual choices. For example the bartender may be aware of an issue with his behavior, but may not have directions on how to communicate with management or documenting a refusal of service. The quality of supervision could thus be as crucial as the employee’s personal actions.
Insurance investigations may ask similar inquiries.
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. The terminology may differ however the core investigation remains focused on alcohol service, staff behavior, training, and supervision by management.
The detailed review could comprise incident reports as well as written policies, video recordings schedules of employees and certificates. It is not the job of the expert to automatically approve the person who retains them. The expert has to explain why the evidence supports, identify relevant practices in the business and accept any limitations.
Experience can help explain the reasoning that drive the records
Rideout has worked with plaintiffs and defendants across 11 states in the past to testify on hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related matters.
His analysis addresses bars, restaurants, nightclubs, hotels resorts, casinos, as well as other settings for hospitality that have alcohol services as part of the day-to-day operations. Every environment faces its own specific requirements for staffing and supervisory management.
A bartender who works in a tiny restaurant’s dining area might have a better opportunity to observe customers more than a staff member at a nightclub service counter. Understanding these differences allows you to place the evidence into its correct operational context.
The credibility of a person’s opinion isn’t filled with assumptions
Dram shop laws are different according to regions. Expert evidence from experts in operational matters shouldn’t be taken as a legal determination. The most accurate analysis will reveal what the employees did and what recognized practices were necessary, and what conclusions are reasonable on the basis of the evidence.
Sometimes the records reveal an infraction to established procedures. Other records show that employees did not follow the correct procedures or left important questions unanswered.
If lawyers are evaluating claims related to alcohol this distinction is critical. Expert opinions are more than a description of the incident. It helps the court be aware of what was happening in the premises even before the time of the night was over.
