Nightclubs can be equipped with bartenders who are trained, written alcohol policies, as well as a skilled manager at every shift. In an employee handbook, these policies can be a source of comfort.
But imagine a packed Saturday night when several bartenders serve the same crowd while a floor supervisor is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds from various locations. Who has the responsibility to determine when a person is no longer a candidate for alcohol?
This aspect is more crucial in the dram shop litigation process than merely determining the number of drinks that are sold.
In the beginning, employees can see the signs of a possible overservice investigation.
Dram Shop expert witnesses will determine if the alcohol service choices made by employees were in accordance with industry standards and circumstances.
The presence of alcohol in a person does not establish, on its own that the bartender was aware of warning signs while serving. The investigation should consider the manner in which the customer behaved and the timing of service, the observations of staff and any evidence that is available.
Surveillance footage could reveal difficulties walking, unusual movements or even interactions with employees. The testimony of witnesses could add context to the situation, even if recollections are different. It is essential to differentiate between what investigators knew about an incident, and what personnel could have reasonably recognized at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t Equal One Drink
The point-of-sale record is useful, but interpreting them requires experience in hospitality. A single customer might purchase several rounds for friends. Bottle-service transactions may require more than one person. Bartenders may process different orders without knowing about the previous order of a different employee.
Alcohol experts are able to look at the duration of transactions, drinks consumed, surveillance video, and records of staffing to create a complete timeline.
This analysis may reveal moments when employees were able to intervene or acknowledge the fact that they were drunk. It is also a way to identify situations where the evidence is not sufficient to determine who consumed certain drinks.
The Floor is where the training takes place.
The accreditation of employees is essential however it doesn’t necessarily determine how a place performed during a particular shift.
Checking if the training program is current, if employees are aware of intervention procedures, and whether managers have a strong understanding of the policies could be part of an investigation.
Preston Rideout brings approximately three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
Professionally, his qualifications show that he is the owner of 112 seller-server certificates for 48 states as well as the District of Columbia.
This allows him to review the training staff received as well as operational decisions that they faced. Bartenders, as an example might be able spot a pattern that is concerning but may not have clear directions regarding how to report it or contact management. In the end, the level of supervision is equally important as the employee’s behavior.
Insurance Investigations may ask similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability usually answer the same operational issues for insurers as well as defense counsel and coverage lawyers. Although the terminology used may differ, the examination is still focused on alcohol services, employee conduct monitoring, management oversight, and training.
A thorough review could include incidents reports as well as written policies. This could also include video recordings as well as employee schedules and certificates. It is not up to the expert to endorse the company that employs them. The expert’s responsibility is to present the findings that they have discovered, to determine the best practices for industry and identify the significant limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions behind the records
Rideout has partnered with defendants and plaintiffs in 11 states in the past to testify on alcohol-service, hospitality and other aspects.
His analysis includes bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments in addition to resorts, casinos and other settings in which alcohol is served on a regular basis. Each place is distinct in terms of staffing requirements and the challenges of supervision.
A bartender who works in a tiny restaurant’s dining area may be able to better observe customers more than a staff member at a nightclub service counter. Understanding the distinctions will enable you to place evidence in the proper operational context.
A Credible Opinion Doesn’t Fill the gaps by assuming assumptions.
The laws governing a shop’s ramifications differ in each jurisdiction. Operational expert testimony is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The best analysis will explain how the employees acted as well as the recognized standards of service that were needed, and what conclusions are reasonable on the basis of the evidence.
Sometimes, records show that an error is observed from prescribed procedure. Other records show that employees didn’t follow the correct procedures or left crucial questions unanswered.
It is crucial to differentiate between the two for lawyers to evaluate alcohol-related lawsuits. A reliable expert opinion can do more than describe the incident. The court can better understand the decisions taken in the establishment, even though nobody could tell what the outcome would be.
