Bartenders in nightclubs are trained and are able to write alcohol policies down, and have an experienced manager at every shift. These security measures could be comforting when they are incorporated in a manual for employees.
But imagine a packed Saturday night when several bartenders serve the same customers and a floor manager is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds from various locations. Who’s responsible for determining if somebody shouldn’t have alcohol anymore?
This question is more telling in the context of dram shops litigation, rather than merely determining the number of drinks that are sold.
The first step in an investigation of overservice is to see what the staff members could be seeing
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with established industry practices and the specific circumstances employees encountered.
The intoxication of a customer doesn’t prove, on its own that the bartender spotted warning signs when serving. Investigations must take into account what the customer’s behavior was, the timing of the service, observations by staff, as well as any other evidence.
Surveillance video could capture employees having conversations with one with each other, performing strange movements or unable to walk. Witness testimony can provide further background, however their perceptions may differ. The most important distinction is what investigators know after an incident and what personnel could reasonably recognize in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Equal One Drink
Records of sales at the point of sale are helpful, but interpreting them requires hospitality experience. Customers can purchase several rounds of beer for friends. Multiple people may be involved in bottle-service transactions. Bartenders are able to process multiple orders without knowing the previous order placed by another employee.
Alcohol experts are able to analyze quantity of drinks consumed and transaction times as well as surveillance recordings and information on staffing in order to establish a better time-line for service.
This study could identify instances when employees had the chance to recognize intoxication or intervene. The analysis could also reveal where there is not enough evidence to establish the individual who consumed the particular drink.
The floor is where Training Matters.
Although certifications of employees are crucial but they do not always reflect how an establishment operated during a specific shift.
The investigation could determine whether or not the employees have been trained, if they know the correct intervention procedure, and if managers have reinforced policies.
Preston Rideout brings approximately three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
He also has 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional credentials.
The combination of the two will allow him to analyze both the training that employees were given and their practical decisions. For instance, a bartender might recognize concerning behavior but lack clear directions on how to communicate with management or logging a denial of service. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the supervisor’s capability to manage.
Insurance investigations may ask similar questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability usually discuss the same operational concerns for insurance companies as well as defense counsel and coverage lawyers. While the language used may differ however, the fundamental issue that is being investigated concerns the alcohol service and staff behavior.
An exhaustive review can include incidents reports, written policies and procedures, videos and employee schedules. It could also include certification records, as well as deposition testimony. It’s not the role of the expert to automatically endorse the party that retains them. The expert should explain why the data supports, identify pertinent practices within the industry and recognize any limitations.
Experience is the reason for the decisions that led to the records
Rideout has partnered with defendants and plaintiffs in 11 states to testify in hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related matters.
The analysis he provides includes bars, nightclubs and hotels and resorts, as well as casinos and other places in which alcohol is regularly served. Each place has different staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
The bartender in a small dining room of the restaurant might be able to see different aspects of customers than an employee of a nightclub who works at a busy service station. Knowing these distinctions allows you to put the evidence in the proper operational context.
A Credible Opinion Doesn’t Fill Gaps With Assumptions
Dram shop laws differ by regions. Expert testimony from operational experts should not be mistaken for a legal determination. The most accurate analysis will reveal the activities of the employees as well as the recognized standards of service that were necessary, and what conclusions are reasonable based on the evidence.
Sometimes, records show that an error was made from the standard procedure. In other instances, they show that employees adhered to appropriate practices or leave important questions unanswered.
This distinction is essential for lawyers who have to evaluate cases involving alcohol. An expert opinion is more than a description of the incident. The court can better understand the decisions taken in the establishment, even if nobody could tell what the result would be.