Nightclubs can employ bartenders who know their stuff, have alcohol policies written down, and an experienced manager at every shift. They may be described as reassuring in a manual for employees.
Imagine a Saturday night, when multiple bartenders serve the same customers. A floor manager is dealing with an issue, and patrons order rounds from multiple places. Who is responsible for determining if an individual shouldn’t drink anymore?
This issue is more relevant in the dram shop litigation process than merely determining the number of drinks that are sold.
For starters, staff will be able recognize signs of a possible overservice investigation.
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related decisions were consistent with industry standards and the conditions employees faced.
A customer’s intoxication does not establish, on its own that the bartender was aware of warning signs while serving. The investigation should take into account what the customer’s behaviour was and the time of service, employee observations and any evidence that is available.
Surveillance footage could reveal difficulties walking, odd movements or even interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide additional detail, even though their memories may differ. It is crucial to distinguish between what the investigators were aware of about an incident, and what staff could have reasonably recognized in the moment.
One tab doesn’t necessarily mean One Drink
The record of the sale at the point-of-sale can be helpful, but they require hospitality experience to read. A customer could buy several rounds of beer for friends. Bottle-service transactions can be performed by more than one person. Bartenders may process different orders, without identifying the previous order of a different employee.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities in surveillance footage, as well staffing records to create more comprehensive service timelines.
This analysis may reveal moments when employees were able intervene or acknowledge that they were drinking. It could also help identify instances where there is no evidence to establish who consumed certain drinks.
The importance of training is once it is completed
The accreditation of employees is crucial however, it doesn’t necessarily determine how a place performed during a particular shift.
A thorough investigation can determine if the training was up-to-date, if employees were aware of intervention procedures and whether supervisors reinforced the company’s policies.
Preston Rideout brings approximately three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
His professional qualifications also show that he is the owner of 112 seller-server certifications covering 48 states as well as the District of Columbia.
The combination allows him to examine both the training employees received as well as the operational decisions they faced. For example a bartender could be aware concerning behavior but lack clear guidelines for contacting management or documenting a refusal of service. The effectiveness of supervision may consequently be as significant as the employee’s individual actions.
Insurance investigations could pose similar questions.
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability usually discuss the same operational concerns for insurers attorneys, coverage counsel, and defense lawyers. While the terms used could be different, the investigation remains focused on alcohol service, employee conduct control, management oversight, as well as training.
A comprehensive review may include incident reports and written policies. It could also contain videos, employee schedules or certification documents. It is not an expert’s responsibility to defend an individual who would like them. It’s to clarify what the evidence supports as well as identify pertinent industry practices and recognize the limitations that are significant.
The experience of the past helps explain the rationale that drive the records
Rideout has been an alcohol service witness and hospitality matters in eleven states. He has acted as a witness for plaintiffs as well as defense lawyers.
The analysis he provides covers bars, restaurants and nightclubs as well as resorts, hotels, casinos as well as other establishments which serve alcohol on a daily basis. Each environment presents different staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
A bartender who works in a restaurant’s dining room might have a better opportunity to watch customers than a worker of a counter service at a nightclub. Knowing these differences will help put the evidence into the proper context of operation.
Credible opinion doesn’t fill gaps by making assumptions
Dram shop laws are different according to the jurisdiction in which they are located. Expert statements from operational experts is not a substitute for a legal determination. The most comprehensive analyses provide a clear explanation of what employees did and the types of service practices required. They also confirm the conclusions that can be reasonably made from the data.
Sometimes, the records show deviations from standard procedures. The records also show that employees did not follow the proper procedures or left important questions unanswered.
For attorneys evaluating alcohol-related claims, that distinction matters. A qualified expert’s report that is helpful does more than just describe what happened. It helps the court understand what was happening inside the premises even before the time of the night was over.