A nightclub can be equipped with bartenders who are trained as well as written alcohol policies and a skilled manager on every shift. In an employee handbook, these security measures can be seen as reassuring.
Imagine a Saturday night where several bartenders are serving the same crowd. A floor manager has to deal with an issue, and patrons order rounds from multiple locations. Who will decide when a person should not drink alcohol?
This could reveal more about a dram store lawsuit, other than knowing how many bottles have been sold.
The first step in investigating overservice is to see what staff members might be seeing.
Dram Shop expert witnesses will examine whether the alcohol service choices made by employees were conforming to industry standards and circumstances.
A person’s intoxication may not, by itself, show that a bartender spotted visible warning signs throughout service. The investigation should consider what the customer’s behavior was and the time of service, any observations made by staff, as well as any other evidence.
Surveillance footage can reveal issues with walking, odd movements or interactions with employees. Witness statements can provide additional background, however their perceptions may differ. The most important thing to differentiate between is the information investigators have learned after an incident, and also what staff should have known at that time of the incident.
One Tab Doesn’t Necessarily Mean One Drink
Understanding the reports at point of sale requires years of an understanding of hospitality. One customer may purchase multiple rounds of drinks to share with their friends. Bottle-service transactions could be performed by more than one person. Different bartenders could process orders without recognizing that a different employee served the order.
Alcohol experts can look over time of transactions, quantities of alcohol consumed, video surveillance, and the staffing records to establish a complete timeline.
This analysis may identify moments where employees were able to identify intoxication or intervene. It can also be used to pinpoint situations where evidence is not enough to determine who drank certain drinks.
Training Is Important Only When It Is Applied to the Floor
While employee certificates are important but they may not accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a particular shift.
An investigation could examine whether training was current, whether employees understood intervention procedures and whether the managers emphasized the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout brings approximately three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
The professional credentials of his work also indicate that he holds 112 seller-server certificates that cover 48 states, plus the District of Columbia.
This allows him to analyze the instruction employees received as well as the operational decisions they made. For example, a bartender might recognize some issues, but not have clear directions on how to communicate with management or documenting a refusal of service. The effectiveness of supervision may thus be as crucial as the employee’s personal actions.
Insurance investigations might ask similar inquiries.
Expert witnesses in the field of liquor liability typically addresses the same operational issues for coverage counsel, insurers and defense lawyers. The terminology could differ however the core investigation remains focused on alcohol service, staff behavior education, training, and oversight of management.
A comprehensive review may include incident reports and written policies. They could also comprise videos of employee schedules, employee calendars or other certificates. It’s not the expert’s job to help a party who wants them. The expert must clarify what the data supports, identify relevant practices in the business and recognize any limitations.
The experience of the past helps explain the rationale that drive the records
Rideout has testified in alcohol-service and hospitality cases in 11 states, collaborating with both plaintiff and defense counsel.
His analysis is a comprehensive look at restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, as well as casinos, resorts, hotels and other hospitality settings that serve alcohol on daily basis. Every environment faces its own specific management and staffing issues.
The bartender who works in a small dining room at a restaurant may have different opportunities to observe customers compared to a nightclub employee who works at a busy service station. Understanding these differences can help place the data in the proper context of operation.
Credible opinions don’t fill in gaps using assumptions
Dram shop laws vary by locality. Expert evidence from experts in operational matters shouldn’t be taken as an official decision. The strongest analyses explain what employees did and what service practices are needed. They also confirm the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from the evidence.
Sometimes, records indicate some deviation from the established procedure. Others records indicate that employees did not follow the proper procedures or left crucial questions unanswered.
If lawyers are evaluating claims related to alcohol it is important to distinguish between the two. An expert’s opinion that is useful does more than just describe the event. It assists the court to understand the decisions that were made in the establishment prior to knowing how the night would end.