A nightclub could have trained bartenders, written alcohol policies, and a skilled manager on each shift. These security measures could be comforting when they are incorporated in an employee’s manual.
Imagine a jam-packed Saturday night when several bartenders serve the same customers, a floor manager is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds at different places. Who’s accountable for determining when someone shouldn’t be receiving alcohol in the future?
In the case of dram shop litigation this question could be more insightful than knowing how many bottles were sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin With What Staff Members Could See
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with industry standards and the actual circumstances employees confronted.
The presence of alcohol isn’t enough to prove that a bartender knew of the warning signs. The investigation should take into account what the customer’s behavior was, as well as the service timing, and employees’ observations.
Surveillance footage could reveal difficulties walking, strange movements, or interactions with employees. The testimony of witnesses can give additional information, but their recollections could differ. It is crucial to distinguish between what investigators learned about an incident, and what staff members could have reasonably expected to know in the moment.
One tab doesn’t always mean One Drinker
The records at the point of sale can be useful, however they require hospitality experience to read. Customers can purchase several rounds of beer to share with friends. Bottle-service transactions could be performed by more than one person. Bartenders are able to process multiple orders and not know the prior order placed by another employee.
A Alcohol expert witness can review the duration of transactions, alcohol consumption recorded by surveillance cameras, as well as the staffing record to determine the complete timeline of services.
The analysis could reveal instances when employees were able to intervene or detect that they were intoxicated. It could also help identify instances where the evidence is not sufficient to determine who had consumed specific drinks.
The floor is where the Training Matters
Although employee certifications are essential, they do not always accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a particular shift.
The investigation could determine whether or not the employees are adequately trained, whether they have a clear understanding of the interventions and if the managers have implemented policies that have been reinforced.
Preston Rideout brings approximately three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
He also has 112 seller-server certifications that cover 48 states as well as the District of Columbia, according to his professional certifications.
This combination allows him look at the training that employees received and the operational decisions they had to make. Bartenders for instance, might be able to detect a behaviour that is alarming, but they may not have clear instructions regarding how to report it or how to contact management. In the end, the level of supervision is equally important as the employee’s actions.
Insurance Investigations May ask Similar Questions
A specialist witness in Liquor Liability typically deals with the same operational issues for coverage counsel and insurers and defense attorneys. Even though the terms used might be different, the probe is still centered on the alcohol service, employee behavior control, management oversight, as well as training.
A thorough review could include incident reports and written policies. It may also include videos of employee schedules, employee calendars or other certificates. Experts’ role is not to automatically support the party that is keeping them. The expert must explain what the data supports, describe pertinent practices within the industry and accept any limitations.
The experience of the past helps explain the rationale behind the documents
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality matters in eleven states. He has worked for both the plaintiff and defense lawyers.
His study is a comprehensive look at restaurants, bars, and nightclubs as well as casinos, hotels, resorts as well as other establishments that serve alcohol on a daily basis. Each setting is unique in terms of staffing requirements and supervision challenges.
A bartender working in a tiny dining area in a restaurant may have a different chance to observe the customers than employees working at a bustling nightclub’s service station. Understanding these differences can help place the evidence within the proper context of operation.
An opinion that is credible doesn’t fill Gaps With Assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different in each state. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the same as a legal decision. The most accurate analysis explains what employees did and what the accepted service practices called for, and which conclusions the available evidence reasonably is able to back.
Sometimes, the records show the absence of established procedures. Other records show that employees did not adhere to the proper procedures or left important questions unanswered.
It is crucial to differentiate between these two when lawyers are evaluating alcohol-related claims. Expert opinions are more than a description of the event. It assists the court to understand the decision-making process inside the establishment prior to knowing what would happen next.
