Every nightclub must have bartenders who are trained and abide by written alcohol guidelines. Additionally, they need a knowledgeable manager for every shift. In an employee handbook, these guidelines can appear reassuring.
Imagine the night of a Saturday that’s packed, with bartenders serving the exact same group of people, while a floor manager deals with the crowd and customers who are ordering drinks from various venues. Who will decide when a person should not be served alcohol?
In the context of litigation involving dram shops, this question could be more informative than knowing how many bottles were sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin With What Staff Members Could See
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
A customer’s intoxication is not proof, on its own that the bartender was aware of warning signs while serving. Investigations must take into account the manner in which the customer behaved and the time of the service, observations by staff, and any available evidence.
Surveillance video may show employees interacting with each other, making unusual movements or having difficulties walking. Witness statements can provide additional context, although recollections may differ. The most important distinction is the information that investigators have after an incident and what personnel could reasonably be aware of at the time.
One Tab isn’t a necessity. One Drinker
In order to interpret reports from the point of sale, you need an understanding of hospitality. A single person could buy several rounds for friends. Bottle-service transactions can involve multiple people. Different bartenders could process orders without knowing that another employee served the order.
Alcohol expert witnesses are able to analyze amount of alcohol consumed, the timing of transactions and also surveillance records and staffing data in order make a better timeline for service.
The analysis could reveal instances when employees were able to intervene or detect that they were drinking. The analysis may also indicate that there isn’t enough evidence to determine who was the one drinking the particular drink.
Training is only important when it’s on the ground
The certification of employees is crucial however, it doesn’t automatically determine how a venue performed during a particular shift.
Checking if the training program is up-to-date, whether employees understand intervention procedures and whether managers have a strong understanding of the policies can be part of an investigation.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years experience working in the hospitality sector, including bartending and managing nightclubs. He also provides drink program consultation.
He also has 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
This combination allows him both to examine the training employees received as well as operational decisions they made. Bartenders, for example, might be able to identify a behavior which is troubling but not be given clear guidelines regarding how to report it or how to contact management. Insufficient supervision could thus be as crucial as the employee’s individual actions.
Insurance investigations could ask similar questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability typically answer the same operational issues for insurers lawyers, coverage counsel, and defense lawyers. The terms may vary, but the underlying investigation is still about the alcohol service, conduct of staff training, as well as supervision by management.
The comprehensive review may include incident reports, written policies, video recording, employee schedules and records of certification. It is not the job of the expert to automatically approve the entity that they are retained by. The expert must clarify what the data supports, identify relevant practices in the field and be aware of any limitations.
Experience explains the reasons that led to the records
Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality cases across 11 states. He has worked for both the plaintiff and defense lawyers.
His analysis addresses bars, restaurants, nightclubs, hotels resorts, casinos and other venues that have alcohol services as part of the daily operation. Each place is distinct in terms staffing and the challenges of supervision.
A bartender in a restaurant’s dining area may have more opportunities to watch customers than a worker at a nightclub service counter. Knowing the differences will allow you to understand the data in the proper operational context.
It is not possible to fill in gaps by making assumptions
The laws governing a shop’s ramifications differ by region, and operational expert testimony is not to be confused a legal determination of responsibility. The most thorough analysis will explain the actions of employees, what recognized service practices required, and what conclusions the available evidence can be relied upon to support.
Sometimes, records indicate a departure from established procedures. They may also indicate that the employee followed proper methods or did not respond to important questions.
It is crucial to differentiate between these two when lawyers are evaluating alcohol-related claims. An expert opinion is useful and does more than just describe the event. It allows the court to discern what was going on inside the establishment even before the time of the night was over.