A nightclub could have trained bartenders and alcohol policies written down and a knowledgeable manager at every shift. In the employee handbook, these policies can be a source of comfort.
But imagine a packed Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same patrons while a floor supervisor is managing a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds at different places. Who will be responsible to identify when someone has ceased to be eligible for alcohol?
In the context of litigation involving dram shops, this question could be more revealing than simply knowing how many bottles were sold.
To begin with, staff can see the signs of an investigation into possible overservice.
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related choices were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
The fact that a client is drunk is not proof, on its own, that the bartender saw warning signs when serving. The investigation needs to consider what the customer’s behaviour was and the time of service, observations by staff as well as evidence.
Surveillance footage can reveal issues with walking, unusual movements, or interactions with employees. The testimony of witnesses may add context to the situation even though their recollections may be differing. The key distinction is what the investigators learn after an incident and what staff reasonably could have known at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t Have to Mean One Drink
The point-of-sale record is useful, but interpreting them require experience with hospitality. One customer may purchase multiple rounds of drinks to share with their friends. Bottle-service transactions can involve multiple people. Bartenders can take separate orders without knowing the previous order of a different employee.
An Alcohol expert witness can review the time of transactions, beverages consumed recorded by surveillance cameras, as well as the staffing record to determine a more complete service timeline.
This study could identify instances where employees were able to identify intoxication or intervene. It also can reveal instances when there is no evidence to establish who consumed certain beverages.
The floor is where Training Matters.
Employee certifications are important but they’re not enough to establish how a venue worked during a specific shift.
An investigation might examine whether training was current, whether employees knew the correct procedures for intervention, and whether managers reinforced the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout is a professional in hospitality who has more than three decades of experience. This includes management, bartending and consulting on beverage programs.
Based on his professional credentials In addition, he holds 112 server/seller certifications, which cover 48 states and District of Columbia.
The combination of these two permits him to examine the education that employees received as well as their actual decision-making. For instance, a bartender might recognize an issue with his behavior, but may not have instructions on how to contact management or reporting a refusal of service. In the end, the level of supervision just as important as an employee’s behavior.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. Even though the terms used might be different, the probe remains focused on the alcohol service, employee behavior supervision of management, as well as training.
A thorough review could include incident reports and written policies. They could also comprise video recordings as well as employee schedules and certification documents. Experts’ role is not to be a force for the person retaining the expert. It’s about describing the evidence that supports it and to identify industry practices that are relevant and accept the significance of limitations.
Experience explains the reasoning That Drive the Records
Rideout has partnered with plaintiffs as well as defendants in 11 states in the past to testify on hospitality, liquor-service and other issues.
His study focuses on bars restaurants, nightclubs, hotels resorts, casinos and other venues that have alcohol services as part of the day-to-day operations. Each place has different staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
A bartender working in a restaurant’s small dining room may have a better opportunity to observe clients than an employee of a counter service at a nightclub. Knowing these distinctions allows you to put the evidence into its correct operational context.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill the gaps by assuming assumptions.
Dram shop laws vary by the jurisdiction and expert testimony is not to be confused with the legal definition of the responsibility. The most robust analyses clarify the actions of employees and what practices for service are needed. They also back the conclusion that is drawn from the evidence.
Sometimes, the records show the absence of established procedures. Sometimes, the records prove that employees followed the appropriate guidelines or left crucial questions unanswered.
In the case of attorneys who evaluate alcohol-related claims this distinction is critical. An expert opinion is more than just a report of the incident. The court will better understand the decisions made in the establishment, even though nobody knew what the result would be.
