Every nightclub must have trained bartenders and written alcohol policies. Additionally, they need an experienced manager for each shift. In the employee handbook, these safeguards can look comforting.
Imagine a Saturday night that is full of bartenders serving a group of patrons, and an employee on the floor manages crowds and customers placing orders for drinks from various venues. Who’s responsible for recognizing if someone shouldn’t be receiving alcohol or not?
This could reveal more about a dram store lawsuit than just knowing how many bottles have been sold.
The first step in investigating overservice is to determine what the staff could see
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
It isn’t enough to prove that a bartender was aware of warning signs. The investigation should consider the customer’s behavior, time of service, and employees’ observations.
Surveillance video footage could reveal problems walking, odd movements or even interactions with employees. Statements from witnesses may provide more context, though recollections can differ. What is most important to differentiate between is what investigators have learned following an incident, and also what staff should have known at the time of the incident.
One Tab Doesn’t mean one drinker
The points-of-sale records can be helpful, but they require a background in hospitality to interpret. One customer could purchase multiple rounds of wine for friends. Bottle-service transactions may be performed by more than one person. Bartenders can process separate orders without knowing the previous order placed by another employee.
Alcohol experts are able of examining amounts of alcohol consumed and the time it took to complete transactions as well as the surveillance footage and data on staffing to establish a better time-line for service.
The analysis will reveal instances where employees might intervened or identified intoxication. It also can reveal instances when the evidence is not sufficient to determine who consumed particular beverages.
Training is only relevant when it reaches the floor
The certifications of employees are vital but they’re not a guarantee to determine how a place worked during a specific shift.
An investigation may consider whether training was in order, whether employees were aware of intervention procedures and whether management reaffirmed the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, including management of nightclubs and bartending. He also provides drinks program consultancy.
The professional credentials of his work also indicate that he holds 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states, as well as the District of Columbia.
The combination of both allows him to look at both the training that employees were given and their practical decisions. Bartenders, for instance could be able to spot a pattern that is troubling, but not have clear instructions on how to report it or contact management. Therefore, it is important to assess the supervisor’s capacity to supervise.
Insurance Investigations could ask similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor liability often deal with the same operational issues for insurers as well as defense counsel and coverage attorneys. Even though the language could differ, the underlying investigation concerns the alcohol service and staff behavior.
A thorough review could include incident reports and written policies. They could also comprise videos employees’ schedules, employee timetables or certificates. It is not an expert’s duty to provide support to an individual who would like them. The expert must clarify what the data suggests, and identify relevant practices in the business, and acknowledge any limitations.
Experience is a key factor in determining the reasons behind the records
Rideout has worked with plaintiffs and defendants across 11 states to testify in hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related issues.
The analysis he provides includes bars, nightclubs and hotels in addition to resorts, casinos and other places where alcohol is served on a regular basis. Every setting presents its own distinct management structures and supervisory problems.
A bartender serving a small dining area at a restaurant might have a different opportunity to observe customers than an employee working a crowded nightclub service station. Knowing the difference will aid in determining the right operational context.
A Credible Opinion Doesn’t Fill The gaps by making assumptions.
The laws regarding dram-shops are different across all jurisdictions. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The strongest analysis explains what employees did, what recognized service practices called for, and the conclusions the available evidence reasonably can be relied upon to support.
Sometimes, records indicate a departure from established procedures. Some records reveal employees didn’t adhere to the proper procedures or left crucial questions unanswered.
This distinction is important for lawyers who are evaluating allegations involving alcohol. A professional’s opinion that is useful does more than simply describe the event. It assists the court to understand the decisions that were made in the restaurant before anyone knew what would happen next.