Every nightclub should be equipped with bartenders trained and have written alcohol policies. Also, they should have an experienced manager for every shift. The security measures may appear reassuring when they are included in the employee handbook.
Imagine a busy Saturday night when several bartenders serve the same group. The floor manager has to deal with a disruption, and customers purchase drinks from multiple places. Who is responsible to identify when someone has ceased to be eligible for alcohol?
In the case of dram shop litigation this question could be more insightful than the number of drinks sold.
For starters, staff are able to recognize the indications of a possible overservice investigation.
Dram Shop expert witnesses will investigate whether the alcohol-related choices made by employees were in accordance with industry standards and conditions.
An eventual drunkenness of a client does not in itself demonstrate that a bartender saw visible warning signs throughout service. The investigation should take into account the manner in which the customer behaved as well as the timing of service, the observations of staff and evidence available.
Surveillance footage may have employees engaging with each with each other, performing strange movements or having trouble walking. Statements from witnesses may provide more context, though recollections can differ. It is essential to differentiate between what the investigators were aware of about an incident, and what personnel could reasonably have known in the moment.
One tab isn’t always the same as One Drink
The point-of-sale record is useful however understanding them requires experience in hospitality. One customer could purchase several rounds for friends. Bottle-service transactions could be performed by more than one person. Separate bartenders might handle orders without knowing what the previous employee did.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
The analysis could reveal instances where employees were able to intervene or recognize the signs of intoxication. The analysis may also indicate the instances where there isn’t enough evidence to establish the individual who consumed a particular drink.
Training is only important when it’s on the ground
While employee certificates are important, they do not always reflect how an establishment operated during a particular shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not the employees are adequately trained, whether they have a clear understanding of the interventions and whether managers have enhanced policies.
Preston Rideout is a professional in hospitality who has more than three decades of expertise. This includes management, bartending and drink-program consulting.
Professionally, his qualifications show that he has 112 seller-server certifications covering 48 states plus the District of Columbia.
This combination allows him both to review the training staff received, as well as the operational decisions they had to make. For instance a bartender could be aware the problem but have no clear directions on how to communicate with management or documenting a refusal of service. The quality of supervision could therefore become just as important as the individual behavior of the employee.
Insurance Investigations could ask similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness often deals with the same operational issues for coverage counsel, insurers, and defense attorneys. Though the language might differ but the core issue is the alcohol service and staff behavior.
An in-depth review can include incident reports and written policies. This could also include videos of employee schedules, employee calendars or other certificates. It is not an expert’s responsibility to defend those who want them. The expert must explain what the data suggests, and identify relevant practices in the business and accept any limitations.
Experience explains the reasons that led to the records
Rideout has provided testimony in alcohol-related and hospitality issues in 11 states, and has worked with both plaintiff and defense counsel.
His analysis includes bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments in addition to resorts, casinos, and other venues in which alcohol is regularly served. Every setting is different in terms of staffing and management challenges.
A bartender working in a tiny restaurant’s dining room may be able to better observe customers more than a staff member at a counter serving drinks in a nightclub. Knowing these differences will help put the evidence within its proper context.
Credible opinion doesn’t fill gaps with assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different in each state. Operational expert testimony is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The most effective analysis will clarify how the employees acted and what recognized practices were needed, and what conclusions are based on the evidence.
Sometimes, documents show the fact that a change has been made from the established procedure. The records also show that employees didn’t follow the proper procedure or left important questions unanswered.
This distinction is essential for lawyers who have to evaluate allegations involving alcohol. A professional’s advice is more useful than just describe the events. It allows the court to know what was going on inside the establishment even before the evening was over.