Every nightclub must have trained bartenders and written alcohol guidelines. They also need an experienced manager for each shift. These safeguards might look comforting when they are incorporated in an employee’s manual.
Imagine a Saturday night when several bartenders service the same patrons. A floor manager has to deal with the issue, and customers order rounds from multiple locations. Who will be responsible for determining that a person shouldn’t drink alcohol?
In the case of dram shop litigation that question can be more revealing than simply determining how many drinks were sold.
For starters, staff can see the signs of an overservice investigation.
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether the decisions made regarding alcohol-related services were consistent with industry norms and the actual circumstances that employees had to deal with.
The fact that a customer may be drunk does not by itself establish that a bartender observed distinct warning signs in the course of service. The investigation needs to consider what the customer’s behaviour was, the timing of service, staff observations and evidence available.
Surveillance footage could reveal difficulties walking, unusual movements, or interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide further details, though their memories may differ. What’s most important to differentiate between is what investigators learnt after an incident, and what the staff should have known at that time of the incident.
One Tab Doesn’t Mean One Drinker
The interpretation of reports from point-of-sale requires a lot of prior experience in hospitality. A single buyer could purchase several rounds for friends. Bottle-service transactions can include more than one individual. Bartenders can be separate and take orders and not know what other employees previously did.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
The study could uncover instances where employees were able to intervene or realize that they were drinking. It can also identify where there is not enough evidence to pinpoint the person who consumed the particular drink.
Training is Important Only Once It Is Applied to the Floor
Certifications for employees are essential but they’re not enough to reveal how a location worked during a specific shift.
An investigation may consider whether the training was up-to-date, if employees were aware of intervention procedures and whether management reaffirmed the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years experience working in the hospitality sector, including management of nightclubs and bartending. He also provides beverage program consulting.
He also holds 112 seller-server certifications covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
The combination of these two will allow him to analyze the level of training employees received as well as their actual decisions. Bartenders, for example might spot an issue but may might not know how to get in touch with management or report a denial of service. Insufficient supervision could consequently be as significant as the individual employee’s actions.
Insurance investigations might ask similar inquiries.
Expert witness witnesses for liquor liability frequently addresses the same operational issues for coverage counsel, insurers as well as defense attorneys. The terms may vary however the core investigation still concerns alcohol service, employee conduct education, training, and oversight of management.
The comprehensive review may include incident reports as well as written policies, video recording employee schedules, certification records. It’s not the expert’s responsibility to defend a party who wants them. The duty of an expert is to communicate the results, identify industry practices and to recognize the significance of limitations.
Experience Explains the Decisions behind the Records
Rideout has provided testimony in alcohol-related and hospitality cases in 11 states, collaborating with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His study covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments, as well resorts, casinos and other locations where alcohol is frequently served. Each environment has different issues with staffing and supervision.
A bartender serving a small dining room in a restaurant could have different opportunities to observe customers compared to employees at a busy nightclub’s service station. Knowing the differences can aid in determining its appropriate operational context.
The credibility of a person’s opinion isn’t filled with assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different in each jurisdiction. Operational expert testimony is not the same as a legal decision. The best analysis will explain what the employees did and what recognized practices were in place, and which conclusions are reasonable on the basis of the evidence.
Sometimes, documents show a deviation from standard procedures. In other instances, they show that employees adhered to appropriate guidelines or left crucial questions unanswered.
When lawyers evaluate claims involving alcohol it is important to distinguish between the two. A professional’s advice which is valuable does more than just describe what happened. It allows the judge to know what was going on inside the establishment even before the night ended.