A nightclub may have bartenders trained and certified with written alcohol policy, and an experienced manager on each shift. They may be described as reassuring in an employee handbook.
Imagine a crowded Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same crowd. The floor manager is dealing with problems, and customers purchase drinks from multiple locations. Who is accountable to know when a person is no longer a candidate for alcohol?
This question is more telling when it comes to dram shop litigation than merely determining the number of drinks sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin with What Staff Members Could See
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related choices were consistent with established industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
An eventual drunkenness of a client does not, by itself, show that a bartender spotted obvious warning signs while serving. The investigation should consider what the customer’s behavior was and the time of service, observations by personnel, and any evidence.
Surveillance videos may have employees engaging with each or with one another, doing unusual moves or unable to walk. Witness testimony can provide additional information, but their recollections may differ. It is important to distinguish between what investigators learned after the incident and what staff members could have reasonably known in the moment.
One tab doesn’t always mean One Drink
The point-of sale records can be helpful, but they require hospitality experience to interpret. A customer can buy several rounds of beer for their friends. Bottle-service transactions can involve more than one person. Separate bartenders might process orders without knowing what another employee previously served.
Alcohol expert witnesses are able to review the duration of transactions, drinks consumed, surveillance video, and staffing records in order to establish a complete timeline.
This study could identify instances when employees had an opportunity to detect intoxication and intervene. It is also a way to identify situations where the evidence isn’t sufficient to establish who had consumed specific drinks.
It is important to train only until it reaches the floor
While certifications for employees are vital, they do not always accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a specific shift.
Investigating whether the training is current, whether employees understand intervention procedures and if managers are able to reinforce procedures can form part of an investigation.
Preston Rideout brings over three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, management of nightclubs, and consulting on beverage programs.
Professionally, his credentials show that he holds 112 seller server certificates that cover 48 states, as well as the District of Columbia.
This combination allows him review the training his employees received and the operational choices they faced. For example the bartender may be aware of the problem but have no clear guidelines for contacting management or documenting a refusal of service. The effectiveness of supervision may therefore become just as important as the individual employee’s actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. While the terms used could differ, the case is still focused on alcohol services, employee conduct, management oversight, and training.
An exhaustive review can include incident reports, written policy documents videos, written policies, employee schedules, certification documents, and deposition evidence. It is not up to the expert to automatically endorse the party that retains them. The expert has to explain why the data suggests, and identify relevant practices in the field, and acknowledge any limitations.
Experience Explains the Decisions that led to the records
Rideout has worked with plaintiffs as well as defendants in 11 states in the past to testify on hospitality, alcohol-related and other issues.
The analysis focuses on bars, nightclubs, restaurants, hotels resorts, casinos as well as other settings for hospitality where alcohol service is part of daily operations. Each environment is unique in terms of staffing requirements and issues with supervision.
The bartender who works in a small dining room of an eatery may be able to see different aspects of patrons than a nightclub worker working at a bustling service station. Knowing the difference will help you place evidence in the right operational context.
Reliable opinions won’t fill gaps using assumptions
Dram shop laws are different according to locality. Expert statements from operational experts shouldn’t be taken as a legal decision. The most comprehensive analyses provide a clear explanation of the actions of employees and what practices for service are required. They also provide conclusion that is drawn from the evidence.
Sometimes, documents show a deviation from the standard procedure. In other instances, they show that employees adhered to appropriate methods or left critical questions unanswered.
In the case of attorneys who evaluate alcohol-related claims it is important to distinguish between the two. Expert opinions are more than just a report of the event. It helps the court understand the decisions being made inside the establishment, before any one knew what would happen next.