A nightclub could be equipped with bartenders who are trained, written alcohol policies, and a skilled manager on each shift. These safeguards might look reassuring when they are included in an employee manual.
Imagine a Saturday night that is full of bartenders serving the same number of people, while an employee on the floor manages an issue and customers are ordering drinks from various venues. Who’s responsible for recognizing if anyone shouldn’t be drinking at all?
This aspect is more crucial in the context of dram shops litigation, rather than simply determining the quantity of drinks that are sold.
The first step in a probe into overservice is to look at what the staff might see
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether alcohol-service decision were consistent with recognized industry practice and the actual situations employees encountered.
The fact that a client is drunk doesn’t prove, by itself, that the bartender saw warning signs while serving. The investigation should look at the manner in which the customer behaved, the service timing, and employees’ observations.
Surveillance footage can reveal issues with walking, unusual movements or even interactions with employees. Witness statements can provide additional information, but their recollections could differ. There is a significant distinction between the information that investigators have following an incident, and what the staff could reasonably have known in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Signify One Drink
The record of the sale at the point-of-sale are useful, but they require experience with hospitality to interpret. A patron could purchase multiple rounds of beer for their friends. A number of people could be involved in the transaction of a bottle. Bartenders can be separate and process orders without knowing what an employee has previously done.
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 moments that employees had the opportunity to detect intoxication and intervene. It may also identify areas where the evidence is not sufficient to establish who consumed certain drinks.
Training is only relevant when it is completed on the floor.
Employee certifications are important however, they don’t reveal how a location operated during a particular shift.
An investigation could examine whether training was in order, whether employees knew the correct procedures for intervention and whether the managers emphasized the policies of the establishment.
Preston Rideout is a professional in hospitality with over three decades of experience. This includes management, bartending and drink-program consulting.
Professionally, his credentials show that he is the owner of 112 seller-server certificates that cover 48 states, and the District of Columbia.
That combination allows him to analyze the training staff received as well as the operational decisions they had to make. For example, a bartender could spot a problem but not know how to contact management or document a denial of services. This means that the degree of supervision is equally important as the employee’s behavior.
Insurance Investigations could ask similar Questions
Expert witnesses in the field of liquor liability frequently deals with the same operational issues for coverage counsel, insurers, and defense attorneys. While the language used may differ however, the fundamental issue that is being investigated concerns the alcohol service and staff behavior.
The comprehensive review may include incident reports as well as written policies, video recordings schedules for employees, and documents for certification. Experts’ role is not to automatically support the party retaining them. It’s to describe what evidence is in support and identify the relevant practices in the industry and recognize the limitations that are significant.
Experience explains the reasoning That Drive the Records
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality cases in eleven states. He has worked with both plaintiff and defense attorneys.
His research covers bars, restaurants and nightclubs, as well as hotels, resorts, casinos as well as other establishments which serve alcohol on a regular basis. Each environment presents different structure of staffing and challenges for supervisors.
Bartenders working in a small dining area at a restaurant might have a different chance to observe customers compared to an employee working a crowded nightclub’s service station. Knowing the differences can help place the evidence in its proper operational context.
A credible opinion can’t fill in gaps by making assumptions
Dram shop laws vary by location, and the operational expert testimony should not be confused with the legality of determining the liability. The most comprehensive analyses provide a clear explanation of what employees did and what service practices are required. They also back the conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence.
Sometimes, the records reveal that an error has been made from the prescribed procedure. They may also indicate that an employee complied with the correct practices or did not answer the most important questions.
This distinction is vital for lawyers who have to evaluate the validity of claims that involve alcohol. A useful expert opinion does more than merely describe the situation. It aids the court in understanding the decisions that were made in the establishment prior to knowing what would happen next.