Bartenders at nightclubs are are trained, have alcohol policies written down, and an experienced manager for each shift. Those safeguards may look reassuring in a manual for employees.
Imagine a crowded Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same crowd. The floor manager has to handle the issue, and customers purchase drinks from multiple locations. Who is responsible for recognizing when a person should not be served alcohol?
This question can reveal more about a dram shop lawsuit than simply finding out how many drinks have been sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to look at what the staff members could be seeing
Dram Shop expert witnesses will determine if the alcohol service decisions made by employees were conforming to industry standards and other circumstances.
The presence of alcohol isn’t enough to show that the bartender was aware of warning signs. The investigation should take into account the behavior of the customer and the time of service, employee observations and evidence available.
Surveillance video may show employees interacting with each others, performing unusual movements or having difficulty walking. Witnesses’ testimony can give context to the event, even if recollections are different. It is important to distinguish between what investigators learned after an event and what staff could have reasonably recognized in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Mean One Drinker
The point-of-sale record is useful, but interpreting them requires hospitality experience. Customers can purchase several rounds of beer to share with friends. Bottle-service transactions can require more than one person. Separate bartenders may handle orders without knowing what other employees previously did.
Alcohol experts are able to look at transaction times, drink quantities, video surveillance, and staffing records in order to create a complete timeline.
This study could identify instances when employees had an opportunity to detect intoxication and intervene. It is also a way to identify situations where the evidence isn’t sufficient to establish who had consumed specific beverages.
Training Matters Only When It is completed on the floor.
Although certifications of employees are crucial however, they don’t always reveal how a business operated during a specific shift.
Investigative investigations may determine whether or not the employees are trained, whether they know the correct intervention procedure and if management has implemented policies that have been reinforced.
Preston Rideout brings approximately three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
Additionally, he holds 112 seller-server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
This allows him to review the training staff received and the operational decisions they had to make. Bartenders, for example may be able recognize a behavior that is troubling, but not have clear directions regarding how to report the incident or reach management. As a result, the level of supervision is just as important as an employee’s actions.
Insurance investigations could pose similar questions
A witness from the Liquor liability specialist usually is able to address the same operational issues for coverage counsel as well as insurers as well as defense attorneys. Even though the terms used might differ, the case remains focused on the alcohol service, employee behavior supervision of management, as well as training.
An exhaustive review can include incident reports, written guidelines videos, written policies employee schedules, certification documents, and deposition evidence. The expert’s job to help the person who is seeking them. It’s to describe the evidence that supports it, identify relevant industry practices and recognize the limitations that are significant.
Experience is the reason for the decisions that led to the records
Rideout has served as an expert witness in alcohol service and hospitality matters in 11 states. He has worked for both the plaintiff and defense lawyers.
His research focuses on bars, nightclubs, restaurants, resorts, casinos, as well as other settings for hospitality that have alcohol services as part of daily operations. Each setting has its own management and staffing issues.
A bartender working in a tiny dining area in a restaurant may have different opportunities to observe the customers than employees at a busy nightclub’s service station. Understanding those differences helps place the evidence into its proper operational context.
The credibility of a person’s opinion isn’t filled with assumptions
The laws for a dram shop differ in each state. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the same as a legal determination. The most thorough analysis should explain what the employees did, which recognized service practices were necessary, and what conclusions are based on the evidence.
Sometimes, the records show deviations from the standard procedure. They might also prove that the employee was following proper guidelines or failed to answer crucial questions.
For attorneys evaluating alcohol-related claims it is important to distinguish between the two. An expert opinion is more than a description of the event. The court will better understand the decision-making process in the establishment, even if no one could predict what the final outcome would be.