Nightclubs may employ bartenders who are trained, have alcohol policies written down, and have an experienced manager for each shift. In a handbook for employees, these safeguards can look comforting.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is full of bartenders serving the same number of customers, while the floor manager manages an issue and customers are ordering drinks from various locations. Who’s accountable for determining when someone shouldn’t be receiving alcohol or not?
In dram shop litigation, that question can be more informative than determining how many drinks were sold.
The first step in an investigation of overservice is to see what the staff might see
Dram Shop expert witnesses will determine if the alcohol service choices made by employees were in line with industry standards and the circumstances.
A customer’s intoxication is not proof, on its own that the bartender was aware of warning signs while serving. The investigation must consider the behavior of the client, the timing of the service, the observation of staff, and any available evidence.
Surveillance footage may capture employees having conversations with one other, making unusual movements or unable to walk. The testimony of witnesses could add context to the situation even if their memories are differing. What is most important to discern between is what investigators learnt after an incident, and also what staff should have been aware of at the time.
One tab isn’t always the same as One Drink
Understanding the reports at point of sale requires years of an understanding of hospitality. A single buyer could purchase several rounds for friends. Bottle-service transactions can be performed by more than one person. Bartenders may process different orders without knowing about the previous order of another employee.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
This study could identify instances when employees had the chance to detect intoxication and intervene. It can also reveal where the evidence isn’t sufficient to determine who had consumed specific drinks.
It is important to train only when it’s on the ground
While employee certificates are important however, they don’t always show how an organization operated during a particular shift.
A thorough investigation can determine if the training was up-to-date, if employees understood intervention procedures, and whether managers reinforced the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout is a specialist in hospitality with more than 30 years of expertise. This includes management, bartending and consulting on beverage programs.
Professionally, his credentials show that he holds 112 seller-server certifications covering 48 states and 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. Bartenders, for example may be able spot a pattern that is troubling, but not have clear instructions regarding how to report the incident or reach management. In the end, the degree of supervision is equally important as the employee’s actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A witness from the Liquor liability specialist usually will address the same operational problems for insurers and coverage counsel as well as defense attorneys. Although the terminology used may be different, the investigation is still centered on the alcohol service, employee behavior monitoring, management oversight, and training.
A thorough review may include incident reports, written policy documents, video recordings employee schedules, certification records, as well as deposition testimony. The expert’s duty to provide support to a party who wants them. It’s about describing what the evidence supports and to identify industry practices that are relevant, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions that drive the documents
Rideout has appeared in court on alcohol-related and hospitality cases in 11 states, and has worked with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His study includes restaurants, bars and nightclubs as well as resorts, hotels, casinos and other hospitality settings that serve alcohol on a daily basis. Each setting is unique in terms staffing and the challenges of supervision.
A bartender working in a tiny dining area of the restaurant might be able to see different aspects of the customers than a nightclub employee who works at a busy service station. Understanding the distinctions will assist you in placing evidence into its proper context.
A Credible Opinion isn’t able to fill the gaps by assuming assumptions.
Dram shop laws differ by locality. Expert statements from operational experts should not be mistaken for a legal decision. The strongest analyses explain what employees did and the service practices that are needed. They also provide conclusion that can be made from the data.
Sometimes, the records show deviations from established procedures. They may also show that an employee adhered to the proper practices or did not answer the most important questions.
It is vital to differentiate between these two types of lawyers when in evaluating claims involving alcohol. A good expert opinion does more than just describe the event. It helps the court comprehend the decision-making process inside the restaurant before anyone knew the outcome of the night.
