Every nightclub must be equipped with bartenders trained and have written alcohol guidelines. They also need an experienced manager for each shift. In an employee handbook, these security measures can be seen as reassuring.
Imagine a Saturday night when 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 be responsible to determine when a person is no longer a candidate for alcohol?
This issue is more relevant in dram shops litigation than merely determining the number of drinks that are sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to determine what the staff members could be seeing
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 eventual intoxication does not by itself demonstrate that a bartender saw obvious warning signs while serving. Investigations must take into account the customer’s behaviour and the time of service, observations by personnel, and any evidence.
Surveillance video can reveal an inability to walk, unusual actions, or even interactions with employees. Statements from witnesses may provide more details, however recollections of events may differ. The key distinction is what the investigators learn after an incident and what the staff could reasonably recognize at the time.
One tab doesn’t necessarily mean One Drinker
The record of the sale at the point-of-sale are helpful, but they need experience in hospitality to interpret. One customer may purchase multiple rounds of drinks for their friends. A number of people could be involved in an order for bottle service. Bartenders can process separate orders and not know the prior order of another employee.
An Alcohol expert witness can review the time of transactions, beverages consumed, surveillance recordings, and the staffing record to determine a more complete service timeline.
The analysis could reveal instances when employees were able to intervene or detect that they were intoxicated. It also can reveal instances when the evidence isn’t sufficient to determine who had consumed specific beverages.
Training is only important once it is completed
The certification of employees is crucial however, it doesn’t immediately determine the way a facility performed during a particular shift.
Investigations can determine whether or not the employees are adequately trained, whether they know the correct intervention procedure and if the managers have implemented policies that have been reinforced.
Preston Rideout brings over three decades of experience in operations for hospitality in this field, which includes bartending, managing nightclubs, and drink-program consultancy.
Professionally, his credentials show that he holds 112 seller server certificates for 48 states plus the District of Columbia.
The combination of the two will allow him to analyze both the training that employees received and their operational choices. For example a bartender could be aware the problem but have no clear direction about contacting management or reporting a refusal of service. As a result, the degree of supervision is equally important as the employee’s behavior.
Insurance investigations could ask similar inquiries.
A Liquor liability specialist witness often addresses the same operational concerns for coverage counsel and insurers as well as defense lawyers. The terms may vary however the core investigation is still about alcohol service, staff conduct, training, and management oversight.
The thorough review could include incident reports as well as written policies, video recording employee schedules, documents for certification. The role of an expert isn’t to imply that the company is that is keeping them. The expert must explain what the data supports, identify relevant practices in the business, and acknowledge any limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions behind the documents
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality cases in eleven states. He has worked as a witness for plaintiffs as well as defense lawyers.
His research covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments, as well resorts, casinos, and other venues where alcohol is served on a regular basis. Every setting presents its own distinct structure of staffing and challenges for supervisors.
A bartender serving a small dining area at a restaurant might be able to observe customers compared to employees at a busy nightclub service station. Knowing the differences will allow you to understand the data in the proper operational context.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill Gaps With Assumptions
The laws for a liquor shop vary based on jurisdiction, and operational expert testimony should not be confused with a legal determination of responsibility. The most thorough analysis should explain how the employees acted in the manner that was recognized as a service practice were required, and what conclusions can be based on the evidence.
Sometimes, records indicate that a deviance occurred from the prescribed procedure. Other records show that employees did not adhere to the correct procedures or left critical questions unanswered.
This distinction is essential for lawyers who are evaluating the validity of claims that involve alcohol. An expert’s opinion that is useful does more than just describe the event. The court is able to understand the decisions made in the establishment, even if no one could predict what the outcome would be.