A nightclub can be equipped with bartenders who are trained, written alcohol policies, and a skilled manager on every shift. The security measures may appear reassuring in an employee handbook.
Imagine a busy Saturday night, when multiple bartenders serve the same crowd, a floor manager is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds from various locations. Who will be responsible to identify when someone has ceased to be eligible for alcohol?
This could reveal more about a dram shop lawsuit, other than the number of drinks that were sold.
The first step in a probe into overservice is to determine what the staff might see
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether the alcohol-service decisions were in line with recognized industry practice and the real-life circumstances employees faced.
A customer’s intoxication does not establish, by itself that the bartender spotted warning signs when serving. The investigation must consider the behavior of the customer and the timing of service, observations by staff and evidence available.
Surveillance video can reveal an inability to walk, strange movements, or interactions with employees. The testimony of witnesses can provide context to the incident regardless of whether their own memories are differing. What’s important to differentiate between is the information investigators learned from an incident, as well as what staff should have known at the moment of the incident.
One Tab Doesn’t Always Mean One Drinker
Point-of-sale records are useful however, their interpretation require experience with hospitality. A customer might purchase several rounds of drinks for their buddies. Bottle-service transactions can include multiple customers. Bartenders can process separate orders, without identifying the previous order of an employee.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
This analysis may identify moments where employees were able to identify intoxication or intervene. The analysis could also reveal that there isn’t enough evidence to establish who was the one drinking the particular drink.
Training is only important when it’s on the ground
Certifications of employees are crucial, but they don’t automatically define how a facility was run during a specific shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not the employees are adequately trained, whether they have a clear understanding of the interventions and if the managers have reinforced policies.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years of hospitality operations experience to his job, including bartending, management of nightclubs, and drink-program consultancy.
He also holds 112 seller-server certifications that cover 48 states as well as the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
The combination of these two allows him to look at the level of training employees received and their operational choices. For example a bartender could be aware an issue with his behavior, but may not have directions on how to communicate with management or logging a denial of service. The adequacy of supervision can thus be as crucial as the employee’s personal actions.
Insurance Investigations may ask similar Questions
Expert witnesses in the field of liquor liability often is able to address the same operational concerns for insurers, coverage counsel defense lawyers, and coverage counsel. Even though the terms used might be different, the probe remains focused on the alcohol service, employee behavior control, management oversight, as well as training.
A thorough review may include incident reports, written policies and procedures, videos employee schedules, certification documents, and deposition evidence. It is not the expert’s duty to provide support to the person who is seeking them. It’s about describing what evidence is in support, identify relevant industry practices and accept the significance of limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions Behind the Records
Rideout has worked with plaintiffs as well as defendants in 11 states to testify in hospitality, liquor-service and other subjects.
His research is a comprehensive look at restaurants, bars, and nightclubs along with resorts, hotels, casinos and other settings for hospitality that serve alcohol on regular basis. Every setting presents its own distinct management structures and supervisory problems.
A bartender working in a small restaurant’s dining area might be better able to watch customers than a worker of a counter service at a nightclub. Knowing these distinctions allows you to put the evidence in its proper context.
Trustworthy opinions can’t fill in holes with assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different across all jurisdictions. Operational expert testimony is not the same as a legal decision. The most thorough analysis will explain what employees did in the past, what standards of service required, and which conclusions the available evidence reasonably can be relied upon to support.
Sometimes the records reveal an infraction to established procedures. In other instances, they demonstrate that employees followed appropriate methods or left critical questions unanswered.
In the case of attorneys who evaluate alcohol-related claims it is important to distinguish between the two. A professional opinion is more than just a report of the event. It helps the court comprehend the decisions that were made in the establishment prior to knowing how the night would conclude.