Bartenders at nightclubs are possess a formal education, have alcohol policies written down, and have an experienced supervisor at each shift. Those safeguards may look reassuring in a handbook for employees.
But imagine a packed Saturday night when several bartenders serve the same customers or a floor manager taking care of a disturbance, while customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who will be responsible to determine when a person is no longer eligible for alcohol?
This is a more important issue in the context of dram shops litigation, rather instead of merely determining the amount of drinks sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to look at what staff members might be seeing.
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether the alcohol-related decisions made by employees were in line with the accepted industry norms and the specific circumstances employees confronted.
The presence of alcohol in a person is not proof, by itself, that the bartender saw warning signs when serving. The investigation must consider what the customer’s behaviour was, the timing of service, employee observations, and available evidence.
Surveillance footage can reveal issues with walking, unusual movements or interactions with employees. Statements from witnesses can provide additional details, though their memories may differ. It is crucial to distinguish the information that investigators had about an incident, and what the staff could have reasonably recognized in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Mean One Drink
Records of sales at the point of sale are helpful however, their interpretation require experience with hospitality. A customer can buy several glasses of beer for friends. A bottle-service transaction may be involving multiple individuals. Different bartenders could process orders without being aware that another employee is serving the order.
Alcohol expert witnesses are able to review time of transactions, quantities of alcohol consumed, surveillance video, and staffing records in order to build a complete timeline.
The analysis could reveal moments when employees had the chance to recognize intoxication or intervene. The analysis may also indicate the instances where there isn’t enough evidence to determine the person who drank the particular drink.
Training is only relevant when it is completed on the floor.
Although certifications of employees are crucial however, they don’t always reflect how an establishment operated during a particular shift.
An investigation may consider whether the training was up-to-date, if employees knew the correct procedures for intervention and whether supervisors reinforced the company’s policies.
Preston Rideout is a hospitality expert with over three decades of expertise. This includes management, bartending and drink-program consulting.
Based on his professional credentials according to his professional qualifications, he also holds 112 seller/server certificates that cover 48 states and District of Columbia.
This combination allows him look at the training that employees received and the operational choices they made. For instance the bartender may be aware of concerning behavior but lack clear instructions on how to contact management or recording a refusal of service. Insufficient supervision could consequently be as significant as the individual employee’s actions.
Insurance investigations may ask similar questions.
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. Even though the language could differ the main issue in all cases is alcohol service and staff conduct.
A thorough examination could include incidents reports, written policies and procedures, videos employees’ schedules, certificates, records, and deposition testimony. It is not up to the expert to automatically endorse the person who retains them. The expert has to explain why the data suggests, and identify relevant practices in the business and accept any limitations.
Experience is a key factor in determining the reasons that are behind the records
Rideout has partnered with plaintiffs as well as defendants in 11 states in the past to testify on hospitality, alcohol-related and other subjects.
His study covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments, as well resorts, casinos and other settings where alcohol is frequently served. Every setting presents its own distinct structure of staffing and challenges for supervisors.
A bartender in a tiny restaurant’s dining room might be able to better look over customers than an employee of a counter service at a nightclub. Knowing these differences will help put the data in the proper context of operation.
Credible opinions don’t fill in gaps with assumptions
The laws for a liquor shop vary based on region, and operational expert testimony is not to be confused with an official determination of liability. The most thorough analysis should explain the activities of the employees as well as the recognized standards of service that were required, and what conclusions are based on the evidence.
Sometimes, documents show a deviation from the established procedure. In other cases, they prove that employees followed the appropriate practices or leave important questions unanswered.
For attorneys evaluating alcohol-related claims this distinction is critical. A qualified expert’s report is more useful than just describe the event. The court will be able to better comprehend the decisions made in the establishment, even though nobody could tell what the outcome would be.
