Bartenders in nightclubs have been trained and are able to write alcohol policies down, and have an experienced supervisor at each shift. These safeguards might look reassuring when they are included in an employee’s manual.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night where several bartenders are serving the same patrons and a floor manager is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds at different places. Who’s responsible for determining if an individual shouldn’t drink or not?
In the case of dram shop litigation this question could be more important than determining how many drinks were sold.
In the beginning, employees will be able recognize signs of an investigation into possible overservice.
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the specific circumstances employees encountered.
Intoxication is not enough to show that the bartender knew of the warning signs. The investigation must consider what the customer’s behavior was, as well as the service timing, and employees’ observations.
Surveillance video may show employees interacting with each other, making unusual movements or unable to walk. The testimony of witnesses could add context to the situation even though their recollections may be differing. The most important thing to differentiate between is the information investigators learnt after an incident, and what the staff should have known at the moment of the incident.
One Tab Doesn’t Necessarily Mean One Drink
The record of the sale at the point-of-sale can be useful, however they require experience with hospitality to interpret. A customer can buy several rounds of beer for friends. Bottle-service transactions can involve multiple people. Separate bartenders could process orders without knowing what another employee previously served.
Alcohol expert witnesses are able to examine the quantity of drinks consumed and transaction times as well as surveillance recordings as well as staffing information to make a better timeline for service.
The study could uncover instances in which employees were able intervene or acknowledge the fact that they were drunk. It could also be used to pinpoint situations where evidence is not enough to determine who drank certain beverages.
The Floor is where the Training Matters
The certifications of employees are vital but they’re not a guarantee to reveal how a location performed during a particular shift.
Checking if the training program is current, whether employees know the correct procedures for intervention, and if managers are able to reinforce procedures can form part of an investigation.
Preston Rideout brings more than three decades of experience in operations for hospitality to his work, which includes bartending, managing nightclubs, and even beverage-program consultation.
He also holds 112 seller server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional certifications.
The combination allows him to review the training his employees received and the operational decisions they had to make. For example the bartender may be aware of some issues, but not have clear direction about contacting management or reporting a refusal of service. The adequacy of supervision can therefore become just as important as the individual employee’s actions.
Insurance Investigations could ask similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. Even though the terms used might be different, the investigation is still focused on alcohol service, employee conduct control, management oversight, as well as training.
The detailed review could comprise incident reports, written policies, video recordings, employee schedules and records of certification. It is not an expert’s job to support those who want them. It’s about describing what the evidence supports as well as identify pertinent industry practices and accept the significance of limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions behind the records
Rideout has provided testimony in alcohol-related and hospitality issues in eleven states, working with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His research examines restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, in addition to resorts, hotels, casinos and other hospitality settings which serve alcohol on a daily basis. Every environment faces its own specific issues with staffing and supervision.
A bartender in a small dining room in a restaurant could have a different chance to observe the customers than employees at a busy nightclub’s service station. Knowing these distinctions allows you to place the evidence within the correct context of operation.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill gaps with assumptions.
The laws for a dram shop differ in each jurisdiction. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the same as a legal determination. The most robust analyses clarify what employees did and what service practices are needed. They also confirm the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from the evidence.
Sometimes, records show the fact that a change has been made from the prescribed procedure. They may also indicate that an employee complied with the correct methods or did not respond to the most important questions.
This distinction is crucial for lawyers who are evaluating cases involving alcohol. An expert opinion is useful and does more than describe the incident. It allows the judge to understand what was happening inside the establishment prior to the end of the night.