A nightclub may have bartenders trained and certified and alcohol policies written down and a knowledgeable manager on each shift. In the employee handbook, these safeguards can look comforting.
Imagine a Saturday night 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 different locations. Who is accountable to know when a person is no longer eligible for alcohol?
This question can reveal more in a dram store lawsuit than just determining how many drinks were sold.
Overservice investigations begin with what Staff Members Could See
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether alcohol-related decisions are in accordance with recognized industry practice and the actual circumstances that employees faced.
The intoxication of a customer is not proof, on its own that the bartender spotted warning signs when serving. The investigation should consider the customer’s behavior, time of service, and the bartender’s observations.
Surveillance footage could show an inability to walk, odd movement, or interaction with employees. The testimony of witnesses could add context to the situation regardless of whether their own memories are differing. What’s important to differentiate between is what investigators have learned following an incident, as well as what staff should have known at that time of the incident.
One tab doesn’t necessarily mean One Drink
In order to interpret reports from the point of sale, you need an understanding of hospitality. A customer can buy several rounds of beer to share with friends. Bottle-service transactions could require more than one person. Bartenders can process separate orders without knowing the previous order of an 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 where employees were able to intervene or recognize the fact that they were drunk. The analysis could also reveal that there isn’t enough evidence to determine the individual who consumed one particular beverage.
Training is only relevant until it reaches the floor
The accreditation of employees is vital, but it does not automatically determine how a venue operated on a specific shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not employees are trained, whether they understand the intervention procedures and if management has reinforced policies.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years experience working in the hospitality sector, including bartending and nightclub management. He also offers drink program consultation.
He also holds 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional certifications.
This allows him to look at the training that employees received as well as the operational decisions they had to take. A bartender, for example, may recognize the issue, but not know how to contact management or make a record of a decline of services. Insufficient supervision could therefore become just as important as the individual employee’s actions.
Insurance Investigations could ask similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability typically answer the same operational issues for insurers as well as defense counsel and coverage attorneys. Even though the language could differ, the underlying investigation concerns alcohol service and staff conduct.
The complete review might include incident reports, written policies, videos employee schedules, certificates. It is not the job of the expert to automatically approve the entity that they are retained by. The role of the expert is to communicate the results to identify practices in the industry and recognize meaningful limitations.
Experience Helps Explain the Decisions That Drive the Records
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related and hospitality cases in 11 states, and has worked with both plaintiff and defense counsel.
The analysis focuses on bars, restaurants, nightclubs, hotels resorts, casinos, and other hospitality settings that have alcohol services as part of daily operations. Each setting is unique in terms staffing and issues with supervision.
A bartender in a smaller dining room at a restaurant may have different opportunities to observe the customers than a nightclub employee who works at a busy service station. Understanding those differences helps place the data in the proper context of operation.
Reliable opinions won’t fill the gaps by relying on assumptions
The laws governing a shop’s ramifications differ in each jurisdiction. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the same as a legal decision. The most thorough analysis will explain the actions of employees in the past, what standards of service called for, and the conclusion the evidence can be relied upon to support.
Sometimes, the records show deviations from the standard procedure. They could also reveal that an employee complied with the correct procedures or didn’t answer the most important questions.
If lawyers are evaluating claims related to alcohol, that distinction matters. A professional’s opinion that is helpful does more than just describe the events. The court will be able to better comprehend the decisions made in the establishment, even though no one knew what the result would be.