Bartenders at nightclubs are know their stuff and have alcohol policy written down, and have an experienced manager for each shift. In a handbook for employees, these policies can be a source of comfort.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is busy, with several bartenders serving a group of customers, while an employee on the floor manages the crowd and customers who are ordering drinks at various places. Who’s responsible for determining if an individual shouldn’t drink anymore?
This question is more telling in dram shops litigation more than just determining the quantity of drinks being sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to determine what the staff might see
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
Intoxication is not enough to establish that the bartender knew of the warning indicators. The investigation must consider the customer’s behavior, service timing, and staff observations.
Surveillance footage can reveal issues with walking, unusual movements, or interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide further context, although recollections may differ. The important distinction is between the knowledge of investigators following an incident, and what personnel could reasonably have known in the moment.
One tab doesn’t necessarily mean One Drinker
The records 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 their friends. Bottle-service transactions can involve multiple people. Bartenders can take separate orders, without identifying the previous order of a different employee.
Alcohol expert witnesses can examine quantity of drinks consumed and transaction times along with surveillance videos and staffing data in order create a more efficient service timeline.
The analysis may reveal instances where employees might have intervened, or recognized that they were intoxicated. The analysis may also indicate the instances where there isn’t enough evidence to identify who was the one drinking a particular drink.
The floor is where the training takes place.
The accreditation of employees is important however, it doesn’t necessarily determine how a place performed during a particular shift.
An investigation might examine whether training was on-point, whether employees were aware of intervention procedures and whether supervisors reinforced the company’s policies.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years experience working in the hospitality industry, which includes bartending as well as nightclub management. He also provides beverage program consulting.
Based on his professional credentials, he also holds 112 certifications for seller/server that cover 48 states and District of Columbia.
This allows him to examine the training employees received as well as the operational decisions they made. For instance the bartender may be aware of the problem but have no clear directions on how to communicate with management or documenting a refusal of service. This means that the level of supervision is just as important as an employee’s actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
Expert witness witnesses for liquor liability usually examines the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel as well as defense attorneys. Even though the language could differ, the underlying investigation concerns the service of alcohol and the conduct of staff.
An exhaustive review can include incident reports, written policies recordings of video and employee schedules. It could also include certification documents, and deposition evidence. The responsibility of the expert is not to automatically support the party who is retaining them. It’s about describing the reasons for their findings and to identify industry practices that are relevant and recognize the limitations that are significant.
Experience Helps Explain the Decisions That Drive the Records
Rideout has provided testimony in alcohol-related and hospitality issues in eleven states, working with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His research covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments in addition to resorts, casinos and other settings where alcohol is served on a regular basis. Each environment presents different management structures and supervisory problems.
Bartenders working in a small restaurant dining room may have a different opportunity to observe customers than someone working in a packed nightclub’s service station. Understanding these differences can help place the evidence within the proper context of operation.
Credible opinion doesn’t fill gaps by making assumptions
Dram shop laws differ by regions. Expert statements from operational experts shouldn’t be taken as legal advice. The best analysis will explain what the employees did and what recognized practices were necessary, and what conclusions are reasonable based on the evidence.
Sometimes, the records reveal that a deviance occurred from the established procedure. In other cases, they show that employees adhered to appropriate procedures or left important questions unanswered.
It is important to distinguish between these two types of lawyers when in evaluating claims involving alcohol. An expert’s opinion is more than just a report of the incident. The court will be able to better comprehend how decisions were made within the institution, even if no one could predict what the final outcome would be.