Bartenders in nightclubs are trained and are able to write alcohol policies down, and have an experienced manager at every shift. In an employee handbook, these guidelines can appear reassuring.
Imagine a busy Saturday night, when multiple bartenders serve the same crowd or a floor manager taking care of a disturbance, while customers are ordering drinks at different places. Who is responsible for recognizing the moment when a person is no longer allowed to receive alcohol?
In a dram shop lawsuit, this issue can be more revealing than simply determining how many drinks were sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin By What Staff members might see
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether the decisions made regarding alcohol-related services were consistent with recognized industry practice and the actual situations employees were confronted with.
The fact that a customer may be drunk does not by itself demonstrate that a bartender saw recognizable warning signs during service. The investigation must consider the customer’s behavior and the time of service, observations by staff and any evidence that is available.
Surveillance videos may reveal employees interfering with one others, performing unusual movements or having difficulties walking. Witness statements can provide additional background, however their perceptions may differ. It is crucial to differentiate between what investigators knew about an incident, and what staff members could have reasonably recognized in the moment.
One tab isn’t always the same as One Drink
The points-of-sale records are helpful, but they require hospitality experience to understand. A customer could buy several rounds of beer for their friends. A bottle-service purchase could include multiple customers. Different bartenders could process orders without knowing that another employee was serving the order.
Alcohol expert witnesses are able of examining transaction times and beverage quantities as well as the surveillance footage and data on staffing to establish a better time-line for service.
This type of analysis can reveal instances when employees had an opportunity to identify intoxication or intervene. It can also reveal where there is no evidence to determine who consumed particular drinks.
Training is only relevant when it Is Applied to the Floor
While certifications for employees are vital, they do not always accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a particular shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not employees have been trained, if they know the correct intervention procedure, and if managers have enhanced policies.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years experience working in the hospitality sector, including bartending and nightclub management. He also provides advice on beverage programs.
Based on his professional credentials according to his professional qualifications, he also holds 112 seller/server certifications that cover 48 states and District of Columbia.
This allows him to look at the training that employees received as well as the operational decisions they had to make. For example Bartenders may recognize concerning behavior but lack clear directions on how to communicate with management or reporting a refusal of service. It is therefore important to think about the ability of the supervisor to oversee.
Insurance Investigations could ask similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. While the terms used could differ, the examination is still centered around alcohol service, employee conduct control, management oversight, as well as training.
A thorough review could include incident reports and written policies. They could also comprise video recordings, employee schedules or certification documents. It is not the expert’s job to support those who want them. It’s to clarify what the evidence supports and identify the relevant practices in the industry, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.
Experience Helps Explain the Decisions behind the records
Rideout has appeared in court on alcohol-related and hospitality cases across eleven states, working with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His study focuses on bars restaurants, nightclubs, hotels, resorts, casinos, and other hospitality establishments where alcohol-related services are a component of the daily operation. Every setting presents its own distinct management structures and supervisory problems.
A bartender in a small dining area in a restaurant may have different opportunities to observe patrons than an employee working a crowded nightclub’s service station. Knowing the differences can help place the evidence into its proper operational context.
Reliable opinions won’t fill gaps using assumptions
Dram shop laws vary by locality. Expert opinions from experts in operations cannot be interpreted as a legal decision. The most comprehensive analyses provide a clear explanation of the actions of employees and what practices for service are required. They also confirm the conclusions that are able to be made from the data.
Sometimes, records indicate an infraction to established procedures. They may also show that the employee was following proper procedures or didn’t answer crucial questions.
This distinction is essential when lawyers are evaluating cases involving alcohol. An expert’s opinion is more than a narrative of the event. It aids the court in understanding the decision-making process inside the establishment, before any one knew the outcome of the night.