Nightclubs may employ bartenders who are trained with alcohol-related policies, written down, and have an experienced manager on every shift. In a handbook for employees, these security measures can be seen as reassuring.
Imagine the scene of a Saturday night packed, with bartenders serving the exact same group of people, while a floor manager deals with a disturbance and customers ordering drinks from different locations. Who is responsible to recognize when someone is no longer a candidate for alcohol?
This type of question could reveal something more about a liquor store lawsuit than simply determining how many drinks were sold.
The first step in investigating overservice is to determine what the staff members could be seeing
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related decisions were consistent with industry standards and the circumstances employees actually faced.
The presence of alcohol in a person is not proof, on its own that the bartender noticed warning signs when serving. The investigation should take into account the customer’s behavior as well as the timing of service, staff observations and evidence available.
Surveillance video may reveal employees interfering with one with each other, performing strange movements or having trouble walking. Statements from witnesses can provide additional background, however their perceptions may differ. The most important thing to differentiate between is the information investigators learned from an incident, and also what staff should have known at that time.
One Tab Doesn’t Signify One Drink
The point-of sale records are helpful, but they need experience in hospitality to understand. A single person could buy multiple rounds of wine for friends. There could be multiple people involved in bottle-service transactions. Bartenders can process orders in separate locations without recognizing that another employee served the order.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
The analysis could reveal instances when employees were able to intervene or recognize that they were drinking. It can also be used to pinpoint situations where evidence is not enough to determine who consumed certain drinks.
Training is only important until it reaches the floor
The certifications of employees are vital however, they don’t reveal how a location operated during a particular shift.
An investigation may consider whether training was on-point, whether employees were aware of intervention procedures and whether supervisors reinforced the company’s policies.
Preston Rideout is a seasoned hospitality professional with more than three decades of expertise. This includes management, bartending and beverage-program consultation.
Professionally, his qualifications show that he is the owner of 112 seller-server certificates for 48 states plus the District of Columbia.
This combination allows him both to review the training staff received, as well as the operational decisions they had to take. For example Bartenders may recognize the problem but have no clear directions on how to communicate with management or documenting a refusal of service. It is crucial to think about the ability of the supervisor to oversee.
Insurance Investigations may ask similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability typically address the same operational questions for insurance companies lawyers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. While the terms used could be different, the investigation is still centered around alcohol service, employee conduct control, management oversight, as well as training.
A thorough review may include incident reports, written policies and procedures, videos employees’ schedules, certificates, documents, and deposition evidence. The role of an expert isn’t to automatically support the party retaining them. The expert must explain what the data supports, identify relevant practices in the business and recognize any limitations.
Experience can help explain the reasoning behind the records
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related and hospitality matters in eleven states, working with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His analysis covers bars, restaurants and nightclubs, in addition to casinos, resorts, hotels as well as other establishments which serve alcohol on a regular basis. Each environment has different management and staffing issues.
Bartenders working in a small dining room in a restaurant could have a different chance to observe patrons than employees working at a bustling nightclub service station. Understanding these differences can help place the evidence within the proper context of operation.
A credible opinion can’t fill in gaps by making assumptions
Dram shop laws are different according to the jurisdiction in which they are located. Expert opinions from experts in operations is not a substitute for a legal decision. The most robust analyses clarify the actions of employees and what practices for service are required. They also provide conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence.
Sometimes, documents show that a deviation occurred from the prescribed procedure. Some records reveal that employees didn’t follow the proper procedure or left critical questions unanswered.
This distinction is important for lawyers who are evaluating the validity of claims that involve alcohol. An expert opinion is useful and does more than just describe the event. The court is able to understand the decisions taken in the institution, even if no one knew what the outcome would be.