A nightclub may have trained bartenders with written alcohol policy, and an experienced manager at every shift. These safeguards might look like a peace of mind when they’re included in an employee manual.
But imagine a packed Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same patrons, a floor manager is handling a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds from various locations. Who is responsible to identify when someone is no longer eligible for alcohol?
This issue is more relevant when it comes to dram shop litigation instead of merely determining the amount of drinks that are sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to find out what the staff could see
Dram Shop expert witnesses will analyze whether the alcohol service decision-making of employees was in line with industry standards and conditions.
Intoxication is not enough to prove that a bartender knew of the warning indicators. The investigation needs to consider what the customer’s behaviour was as well as the timing of service, observations by staff as well as evidence.
Surveillance footage can reveal issues with walking, strange movements, or even interactions with employees. Statements from witnesses can provide additional information, but their recollections could differ. The most important distinction is the knowledge of investigators after an incident and what the personnel would reasonably be aware of in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Always Mean One Drinker
In order to interpret reports from the point of sale, you need an understanding of hospitality. One customer could purchase several rounds for their friends. Bottle-service transactions can be involving multiple individuals. Bartenders may process different orders without knowing about the previous order of a different employee.
Alcohol experts are able to look at transaction times, drink quantities, video surveillance, and the records of staffing in order to create a complete timeline.
This analysis may identify moments that employees had the opportunity to identify intoxication or intervene. The analysis could also reveal where there is not enough evidence to identify the individual who consumed a particular drink.
The importance of training is until it reaches the floor
While certifications for employees are vital but they do not always accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a specific shift.
Investigative investigations may determine whether or not the employees are adequately trained, whether they understand the intervention procedures, and if 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.
The professional credentials of his work also indicate that he holds 112 seller server certificates covering 48 states, in addition to the District of Columbia.
This allows him to review the training staff received and the operational decisions that they faced. For instance, a bartender might recognize some issues, but not have clear guidelines for contacting management or logging a denial of service. In the end, the level of supervision equally important as the employee’s behavior.
Insurance investigations could pose similar inquiries.
A witness from the Liquor liability specialist often is able to address the same operational issues for coverage counsel and insurers and defense attorneys. While the terms used could be different, the probe is still centered around the alcohol service, employee behavior monitoring, management oversight, and training.
The thorough review could include incident reports as well as written policies, video recordings schedules of employees and records of certification. It is not an expert’s responsibility to defend the person who is seeking them. The expert must clarify what the data suggests, and identify relevant practices in the field and be aware of any limitations.
Experience is the reason for the decisions behind the Records
Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality matters in eleven states. He has worked as a witness for plaintiffs as well as defense lawyers.
His research covers bars, restaurants and nightclubs, in addition to resorts, hotels, casinos and other hospitality settings which serve alcohol on a every day basis. Each environment presents different management structures and supervisory problems.
A bartender working in a tiny dining room in a restaurant could have a different opportunity to observe patrons than employees at a busy nightclub service station. Understanding those differences helps place the evidence in its proper operational context.
An opinion that is credible doesn’t fill gaps with assumptions.
Dram-shop laws are different in every jurisdiction. Operational expert testimony is not the same as a legal decision. The most thorough analysis will explain the actions of employees, what recognized service practices required, and which conclusions the available evidence supports.
Sometimes, records reveal a deviation from established procedures. Sometimes, the records prove that employees followed the appropriate methods or left critical questions unanswered.
This distinction is important when lawyers are evaluating allegations involving alcohol. A professional opinion is more than a narrative of the event. It allows the court to understand what was happening inside the establishment even before the night ended.