Every nightclub should be equipped with trained bartenders as well as written alcohol policies. Also, they should have an experienced manager to oversee each shift. In an employee handbook, these safeguards can look comforting.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same group while a floor supervisor is taking care of a disturbance, while customers are ordering drinks at different places. Who is accountable for recognizing when a person should not be served alcohol?
In the case of dram shop litigation this issue can be more revealing than simply finding out how many drinks were sold.
The first step in an investigation of overservice is to see what the staff might see
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related choices were consistent with established industry practices and the conditions employees encountered.
A customer’s eventual intoxication does not, by itself, establish that a bartender observed obvious warning signs while serving. The investigation should take into account the customer’s behavior and the time of service, observations by staff as well as evidence.
Surveillance footage may reveal an inability to walk, strange actions, or even interactions with employees. The testimony of witnesses may provide context to the incident even though their recollections may be different. What’s important to differentiate between is the information investigators have learned after an incident, as well as what staff should have known at the moment of the incident.
One Tab Doesn’t Have to Mean One Drink
Point-of-sale records are useful however, their interpretation requires a lot of experience in the hospitality industry. One customer may purchase multiple rounds of drinks to share with their friends. Many people can be involved in an order for bottle service. Bartenders who are separate from each other can take orders without recognizing that another employee is serving the order.
Alcohol experts are able of examining transaction times and beverage quantities as well as surveillance recordings as well as staffing information to establish a better time-line for service.
This analysis may reveal moments in which employees were able intervene or detect that they were drinking. It could also help identify instances where the evidence is not sufficient to establish who drank particular beverages.
The importance of training is when it’s on the ground
The accreditation of employees is vital but it cannot necessarily determine how a place worked during a specific shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not employees are trained, whether they have a clear understanding of the interventions and if management has strengthened policies.
Preston Rideout brings more than three decades of experience in hospitality operations to his job, including bartending, nightclub management, and consulting on beverage programs.
Based on his professional credentials In addition, he holds 112 seller/server certificates that encompass 48 states as well as the District of Columbia.
The combination of both lets him examine both the training that employees received and their operational decision-making. For example Bartenders may recognize concerning behavior but lack clear direction about contacting management or documenting a refusal of service. It is therefore important to evaluate the supervisor’s capability to supervise.
Insurance Investigations May ask Similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. The terminology might differ, but the underlying investigation still concerns the alcohol service, conduct of staff training, supervision by management.
An exhaustive review can include incident reports, written guidelines, video recordings, employee schedules, certification records, and deposition witness testimony. The expert’s responsibility is not to automatically support the party who is retaining them. The expert has to explain why the evidence supports, identify relevant practices in the business, and acknowledge any limitations.
Experience can help explain the decision-making That Drive the Records
Rideout has been an expert witness in alcohol service and hospitality cases across 11 states. He has acted on behalf of both plaintiffs and defense lawyers.
The analysis focuses on bars, nightclubs, restaurants, hotels resorts, casinos and other venues where alcohol-related services are a component of daily operations. Each setting has its own issues with staffing and supervision.
A bartender serving a small restaurant dining room may have different opportunities to observe customers than employees working at a bustling nightclub’s service station. Understanding those differences helps place the evidence within its proper operational context.
Credible opinions don’t fill in the gaps by relying on assumptions
Dram shop laws are different according to locality. Expert evidence from experts in operational matters cannot be interpreted as legal advice. The most thorough analyses describe the actions of employees and what service practices are required. They also confirm the conclusion that can be made from the data.
Sometimes, documents show a deviation from established procedures. They may also indicate that the employee followed proper guidelines or failed to answer important questions.
This distinction is important for lawyers who are evaluating the validity of claims that involve alcohol. Expert opinions are more than a narrative of the incident. It assists the court to understand the decisions made within the establishment before anyone knew how the night would end.