Bartenders in nightclubs have been trained with alcohol-related policies, written down, and an experienced manager at every shift. These safeguards might look comforting when they are incorporated in an employee’s manual.
Imagine a jam-packed Saturday night where several bartenders serve the same crowd while a floor supervisor is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds from different locations. Who will decide when someone should no longer consume alcohol?
In dram shop litigation, this question could be more important than the number of drinks sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin By What Staff Could 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. Investigations must take into account the manner in which the customer behaved and the time of the service, the observation of staff, as well as any other evidence.
Surveillance footage may have employees engaging with each or with one another, doing unusual moves or having trouble walking. The testimony of witnesses can give additional information, but their recollections could differ. It is important to distinguish between what investigators learned after an event and what staff members could have reasonably recognized at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t Necessarily Mean One Drink
Records of sales at the point of sale are helpful, but interpreting them requires hospitality experience. A customer can purchase several rounds of drinks for their friends. A bottle-service purchase could include multiple customers. Separate bartenders may take orders and not know what an employee has previously done.
Alcohol experts are able to examine the quantity of drinks consumed and transaction times and also surveillance records and data on staffing to establish a better time-line for service.
The analysis could reveal instances where employees were able to intervene or realize that they were intoxicated. This analysis can also show the instances where there isn’t enough evidence to determine who was the one drinking one particular beverage.
Training Is Important Only When It Reaches the Floor
Although certifications of employees are crucial however, they don’t always reflect how an establishment operated during a specific shift.
An investigation may consider whether the training was up-to-date, if employees were aware of the procedures to intervene and whether supervisors reinforced the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, ranging from bartending and nightclub management. He also offers drink program consultation.
According to his professional qualifications He also has 112 seller/server certificates that encompass 48 states as well as the District of Columbia.
The combination of the two allows him to look at both the training that employees received as well as their operational decision-making. For example the bartender may be aware of concerning behavior but lack clear directions on how to communicate with management or reporting 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
Expert witness witnesses for liquor liability frequently examines the same operational issues for coverage counsel, insurers, and defense attorneys. Though the language might differ the main issue in all cases is the service of alcohol and the conduct of staff.
A detailed review could comprise incidents reports as well as written policies. It could also contain videos as well as employee schedules and certificates. The responsibility of the expert is not to support the person in the process of retaining them. The expert must explain what the data supports, describe relevant practices in the field, and acknowledge any limitations.
Experience explains the reasoning behind the records
Rideout has partnered with plaintiffs as well as defendants in 11 states in the past to testify on alcohol-service, hospitality and other issues.
His study covers bars, nightclubs and hotels, as well resorts, casinos and other settings where alcohol is served on a regular basis. Every setting presents its own distinct staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
A bartender working in a tiny dining room at a restaurant may be able to see different aspects of the patrons than a nightclub worker who works at a busy service station. Knowing these differences will help put the evidence within its proper operational context.
Credible opinion doesn’t fill gaps by making assumptions
The laws for a liquor shop differ based on the jurisdiction in which they are located. Expert testimony from operational experts should not be mistaken for an official decision. The most comprehensive analysis clarifies the actions of employees and what the accepted service practices called for, and the conclusion the evidence confirms.
Sometimes, records indicate the fact that a change was made from the accepted procedure. Other records show that employees did not adhere to the proper procedure or left crucial questions unanswered.
This distinction is important for lawyers who have to evaluate the validity of claims that involve alcohol. Expert opinions are more than a summary of the event. It allows the court to be aware of what was happening in the establishment prior to the evening was over.