A nightclub may be equipped with bartenders who are trained as well as written alcohol policies and a knowledgeable manager on every shift. Those safeguards may look reassuring in a handbook for employees.
But imagine a packed Saturday night when several bartenders are serving the same group and a floor manager is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who will be responsible for determining when a person should not consume alcohol?
This question is more telling in dram shops litigation than merely determining the number of drinks being sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin With What Staff Could See
Dram Shop expert witnesses will examine whether the alcohol service decision-making of employees was in accordance with industry standards and circumstances.
The presence of alcohol isn’t enough to show that the bartender knew of the warning indications. The investigation must consider what the customer’s behavior was, as well as the timing of service, as well as employees’ observations.
Surveillance video can expose a person’s inability to walk, bizarre movements, or interactions with employees. Statements from witnesses may provide more details, however recollections of events may differ. The most important thing to differentiate between is what investigators learned from an incident, and what staff should have known at that time.
One tab isn’t always the same as One Drink
Point-of-sale records are useful however, their interpretation requires experience in hospitality. Customers can purchase several glasses of beer for friends. Bottle-service transactions can be performed by more than one person. Bartenders can be separate and take orders and not know 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.
This investigation could reveal times when employees were able to intervene or recognize that they were intoxicated. It may also identify areas where the evidence is not sufficient to establish who consumed certain beverages.
The importance of training is when it’s on the ground
The accreditation of employees is vital, but it does not instantly determine how a location operated on a specific shift.
A thorough investigation can determine if training was on-point, whether employees knew the correct procedures for intervention and whether the managers emphasized the policies of the establishment.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years experience working in the hospitality industry, which includes bartending and nightclub management. He also offers drink program consultation.
Based on his professional credentials In addition, he holds 112 server/seller certifications, which are valid for 48 states and District of Columbia.
This allows him to review the training his employees received as well as the operational decisions they faced. For example, a bartender might recognize the problem but have no clear guidelines for contacting management or logging a denial of service. Therefore, it is essential to think about the ability of the supervisor to supervise.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A witness from the Liquor liability specialist frequently will address the same operational problems for coverage counsel and insurers as well as defense attorneys. While the language used may differ, the underlying investigation concerns the alcohol service and staff behavior.
A thorough review may include incident reports, written policies videos, written policies, employee schedules, certification records, as well as deposition testimony. It’s not the expert’s duty to provide support to the person who is seeking them. The responsibility of the expert is to communicate the results that they have discovered, to determine the best practices for industry and acknowledge the limitations that are significant.
The Experience of the past explains the reasoning behind the Records
Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol service and hospitality matters in 11 states. He has acted with both plaintiff and defense lawyers.
The analysis he provides includes bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments, as well resorts, casinos and other locations in which alcohol is regularly served. Every environment faces its own specific supervisory and staffing challenges.
A bartender working in a restaurant’s small dining room may have more opportunities to watch customers than a worker at a nightclub service counter. Knowing the differences can aid in determining its appropriate operational context.
A Credible Opinion isn’t able to fill gaps with assumptions.
Dram shop laws differ by regions. Expert opinions from experts in operations cannot be interpreted as legal advice. The best analysis will explain the activities of the employees, which recognized service practices were required, and what conclusions are reasonable based on the evidence.
Sometimes, documents show that a deviation has been made from the prescribed procedure. They may also indicate that an employee complied with the correct practices or did not answer important questions.
It is crucial to differentiate between the two for lawyers evaluating alcohol-related claims. A useful expert opinion does more than simply describe the incident. It aids the court in understanding the decisions that were made in the establishment, before any one knew what would happen next.