A receipt at a restaurant shows a customer drinking a variety of alcohol drinks. The patron was involved in a fatal car crash within a couple of hours of the incident. The receipt may be of value to an attorney who is seeking to determine the potential liability of the dramshop. It’s not necessarily a proof of whether the restaurant served a person who was clearly drunk, or if employees didn’t follow procedures. There’s a chance that the evidence will be more compelling depending on the events that occurred between drink orders.
To comprehend the flow of events, look at the alcohol service as part of a real hospitality program. You can’t simply count drinks after an incident.
A receipt is a record of a sale, but not a requirement of the purchaser.
Records at the point-of-sale can show the time and date of transactions, the drinks were purchased, and how the charges were allocated to the tab.
A receipt is not able to reveal what the client’s behavior was when they were served drinks. It may not be able to reveal who consumed each drink, if drinks were served in a shared manner, and what the bartender observed.
An expert witness can assist lawyers in the interpretation of these documents with regard to video surveillance and employee statements. It is essential to reconstruct the process of service, but not assuming every purchase will tell the entire story.
What can employees actually see?
The most important issue in alcohol-service disputes is whether staff had reason to suspect a patron was intoxicated. Observations that are relevant include speech or coordination issues, difficulties maintaining balance or shifts in behavior.
Yet these indicators require context. Any single action recorded in surveillance footage could have a reason that isn’t related to alcohol. Investigators also need to consider the quality of the footage as well as the positions of employees and camera angles.
Preston Rideout brings experience as bar manager, bartender general manager of nightclubs, and director of operations for bars to these reviews. His background in operations permits him to link recorded evidence and the responsibilities of employees working in bustling hospitality establishments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
In the majority of alcohol-related investigations, questions are asked about the preparation of the employee. Did the establishment offer server-seller instruction? Did the establishment train employees to spot signs of intoxication? Did management provide how to refuse additional service?
These questions are central to Responsible alcohol service service, but reviewing training certificates alone may not answer them.
It is possible for a place to have policies that are detailed, but not consistently implement the policies. In the other case an employee might have followed service standards even if it was tragic.
A review of operations considers the information on training, employee testimony monitoring by management, any actions that were documented in the incident. It is vital for the defense and plaintiffs to differentiate between the existence and effectiveness of the policy and the implementation of it.
The Timeline often reveals the most important questions
Imagine a customer being served drinks by bartenders in a busy evening. It is possible that the initial employee observed normal behaviour. A second bartender might have served a second drink after the shift change. A manager could intervened following the shift change.
Without retracing the timeline, those decisions can seem to be one continuous act of service. Examining all the information such as transaction records and staffing schedules, as well as surveillance footage and incident reports together, will reveal who was responsible and for what. It’s best to find out whether there’s missing records or footage, rather than speculating.
The questions of legal liability and industry practice are different.
Hospitality professionals are able to explain the recognized operating practices of a restaurant and establish whether the conduct of the venue is in line with these practices.
These laws don’t replace a court’s ability to determine legal responsibility. There are distinct laws in each state concerning the legal responsibility of retailers selling alcohol.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting assists plaintiff and defendant lawyers across the country through review of the case, analysis of operations, written opinions and depositions. The focus of its work is on alcohol-related choices and training for staff.
The most robust analysis explains what the evidence cannot show
Alcohol-related events can have serious effects, but their seriousness is not determined by all the evidence.
Lawyers need to be able identify the documents that are available and their limitations as well as the way employees would have been expected to behave in given circumstances.
An in-depth analysis of hospitality will differentiate documented and preconceived behaviours and show how the practices of the establishment are in line with or differ from the accepted norms. This distinction lets courts evaluate what occurred instead of having to rely on only what was later discovered.