A nightclub can include bartenders with training and alcohol policies written down and a knowledgeable manager at every shift. They can appear as like a peace of mind when they’re included in the employee handbook.
Imagine a busy Saturday night where several bartenders are serving the same crowd. The floor manager has to handle an issue, and patrons are ordering drinks from several locations. Who will be responsible for determining the moment when a person is no longer allowed to be served alcohol?
This issue is more relevant when it comes to dram shop litigation than merely determining the number of drinks sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin with What Staff could be seeing
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
A person’s intoxication may alone prove that a bartender was aware of obvious warning signs while serving. The investigation must consider what the customer’s behavior was and the time of the service, the observation of staff members, and any other evidence.
Surveillance footage could show an inability to walk, odd actions, or even interactions with employees. Witnesses’ testimony can give context to the event even if their memories are differing. It is important to distinguish between what the investigators were aware of following an incident and what staff could have reasonably recognized in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Signify One Drink
Records of sales at the point of sale are helpful, but interpreting them require experience with hospitality. A single buyer could purchase multiple rounds of wine for friends. A bottle-service transaction could include multiple customers. Bartenders can process separate orders without knowing about the previous order of an employee.
Alcohol expert witnesses are able of examining amounts of alcohol consumed and the time it took to complete transactions and also surveillance records and information on staffing in order to develop a better service timeline.
This study could identify instances when employees had an opportunity to identify intoxication or intervene. It could also be used to identify situations where the evidence is not enough to determine who consumed certain beverages.
The Floor is where the training takes place.
The accreditation of employees is essential, but it does not instantly determine how a location operated on a specific shift.
An investigation might examine whether training was current, whether employees understood intervention procedures and whether management reaffirmed the establishment’s policies.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, ranging from bartending and managing nightclubs. He also provides drinks program consultancy.
He also has 112 seller-server certifications that cover 48 states as well as the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
The combination allows him to look at the training that employees received and the decisions they had to make. For example, a bartender may be able to spot an issue but do not know how to contact management or record a refusal of services. Therefore, it is important to assess the supervisor’s capacity to manage.
Insurance investigations could ask similar questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability often discuss the same operational concerns for insurers, coverage counsel and defense attorneys. Although the language may vary, the underlying investigation concerns the conduct of staff and alcohol service.
An exhaustive review can include incident reports, written policies and procedures, videos, employee schedules, certification records, and deposition testimony. It’s not the role of the expert to automatically approve the person who retains them. The expert must explain what the data supports, describe relevant practices in the business and accept any limitations.
Experience Explains the Decisions that led to the records
Rideout has been an expert witness in alcohol service and hospitality cases across eleven states. He has acted for both the plaintiff and defense attorneys.
The analysis he provides includes bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments in addition to resorts, casinos and other locations in which alcohol is offered on a regular basis. Each setting has its own management and staffing issues.
Bartenders working in a small dining area at a restaurant might have a different opportunity to observe patrons than someone working in a packed nightclub’s service station. Knowing the differences can aid in determining its proper context.
An opinion that is credible doesn’t fill Gaps With Assumptions
The laws for a liquor shop differ based on jurisdiction. Expert testimony from operational experts should not be mistaken for a legal decision. The most thorough analysis should explain how the employees acted and what recognized practices were in place, and which conclusions are reasonable based on the evidence.
Sometimes, documents show a deviation from the established procedure. They may also show that the employee was following proper methods or did not respond to the most important questions.
When lawyers evaluate claims involving alcohol this distinction is critical. A good expert opinion does more than describe the incident. It aids the court in understanding the decision-making process inside the establishment before anyone knew what would happen next.