Nightclubs can employ bartenders who have been trained and are able to write alcohol policies down, and have an experienced manager for each shift. These safeguards could be reassured in a handbook of employees.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is crowded, with several bartenders serving a group of patrons, and the floor manager is dealing with crowds and customers placing orders for drinks from various venues. Who will decide that a person shouldn’t drink alcohol?
In the context of litigation involving dram shops, this question could be more insightful than determining how many drinks were sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin By What Staff members might see
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether the alcohol-related decisions made by employees were in line with established industry practices and the conditions employees confronted.
Intoxication is not enough to prove that a bartender knew of the warning indications. The investigation should consider what the customer’s behavior was, as well as the time of service, and staff observations.
Surveillance footage could show an inability to walk, bizarre movement, or interaction with employees. The statements of witnesses can provide more detail, even though their memories may differ. The most important distinction is the knowledge of investigators following an incident, and what staff reasonably could recognize in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Signify One Drink
In order to interpret reports from the point of sale, you need prior experience in hospitality. A customer can purchase several rounds of drinks to share with their friends. Bottle-service transactions could require more than one person. Bartenders are able to process multiple orders, without identifying the previous order of a different 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 reveal moments in which employees were able intervene or acknowledge that they were drinking. It could also be used to identify situations where the evidence is not sufficient to determine who drank certain beverages.
Training is only relevant when it reaches the floor
The certification of employees is important however it doesn’t instantly determine how a location was run during a particular shift.
Investigating whether the training is up to date, if employees understand intervention procedures and whether managers have a strong understanding of the guidelines can be a part of the investigation.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years experience working in the hospitality industry, ranging from bartending as well as nightclub management. He also provides beverage program consulting.
He also holds 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
The combination of both allows him to look at the education that employees were given and their practical decisions. A bartender, for example could spot the issue, but not be able to communicate with management or make a record of a decline of service. It is crucial to consider the supervisor’s ability to manage.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability usually discuss the same operational concerns for insurers, coverage counsel and defense attorneys. The terminology might differ however the core investigation remains focused on the alcohol service, conduct of staff education, training, and supervision of management.
A thorough review may include incident reports, written policy documents recordings of video employees’ schedules, certificates, records, and deposition testimony. It is not the expert’s responsibility to defend an individual who would like them. It is to explain what the evidence supports and identify the relevant practices in the industry and identify the significant limitations.
Experience is a key factor in determining the reasons behind the documents
Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol service and hospitality cases across 11 states. He has acted on behalf of both plaintiffs and defense attorneys.
His study focuses on bars restaurants, nightclubs, hotels resorts, casinos, and other hospitality establishments where alcohol service is part of the everyday operations. Each setting has its own supervisory and staffing challenges.
A bartender working in a tiny dining room at the restaurant might have different opportunities to observe the patrons than a nightclub worker working at a bustling service station. Knowing the differences will allow you to place the evidence in its proper context.
Reliable opinions won’t fill the gaps by relying on assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different in each jurisdiction. Operational expert testimony is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The most effective analysis will clarify the activities of the employees and what recognized practices were necessary, and what conclusions are reasonable on the basis of the evidence.
Sometimes, the records show an infraction to established procedures. Sometimes, the records show that employees adhered to 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. An expert’s opinion which is valuable does more than just describe the event. It allows the court to be aware of what was happening in the premises even before the evening was over.