A nightclub could have bartenders trained and certified and alcohol policies written down as well as a skilled manager at every shift. These security measures could be at times as reassuring if they are included in an employee’s manual.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night when several bartenders are serving the same patrons, a floor manager is taking care of a disturbance, while customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who is responsible for recognizing that a person shouldn’t drink alcohol?
This question is more telling when it comes to dram shop litigation more than just determining the quantity of drinks being sold.
For starters, staff may be able to spot the signs of an investigation into possible overservice.
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether the decisions made regarding alcohol-related services were consistent with industry standards and the real-life circumstances employees faced.
The presence of alcohol in a person is not proof, on its own that the bartender noticed warning signs while serving. The investigation should consider the manner in which the customer behaved and the time of service, employee observations and evidence available.
Surveillance video footage could reveal problems walking, unusual movements or even interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide further context, although recollections may differ. It is crucial to distinguish the information that investigators had following an incident and what the staff could have reasonably known at the time.
One tab doesn’t always mean One Drinker
Interpreting point-of-sale reports requires knowledge of hospitality. A single buyer could purchase many rounds of drinks for friends. There could be multiple people involved in bottle-service transactions. Bartenders may process different orders, without identifying the previous order of an employee.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
The analysis could reveal instances when employees were able intervene or recognize the fact that they were drunk. It may also identify areas where the evidence is insufficient to establish who drank particular drinks.
The floor is where the Training Matters
The certification of employees is crucial however, it doesn’t instantly determine how a location performed during a particular shift.
A thorough investigation can determine if training was current, whether employees understood intervention procedures and whether the managers emphasized the institution’s rules and regulations.
Preston Rideout is a hospitality expert with more than 30 years of experience. This includes management, bartending and consultation on beverage-related programs.
His professional qualifications also show that he holds 112 seller server certificates covering 48 states, plus the District of Columbia.
This combination allows him both to examine the training employees received as well as the operational decisions they made. For instance a bartender could be aware an issue with his behavior, but may not have directions on how to communicate with management or reporting a refusal of service. It is crucial to assess the supervisor’s capacity to oversee.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A specialist witness in Liquor Liability typically deals with the same operational issues for coverage counsel and insurers as well as defense lawyers. While the terms used could be different, the probe is still centered around alcohol services, employee conduct supervision of management, as well as training.
The thorough review could include incident reports, written policies, videos employee schedules, certificates. It’s not the expert’s responsibility to defend an individual who would like them. The expert’s responsibility is to present the findings that they have discovered, to determine the best practices for industry and to recognize the significance of limitations.
Experience can help explain the reasoning behind the documents
Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol service and hospitality cases across 11 states. He has worked with both plaintiff and defense lawyers.
The analysis focuses on bars, restaurants, nightclubs, hotels resorts, casinos and other hospitality establishments in which alcohol is a part of daily operations. Each place has its own unique issues with staffing and supervision.
Bartenders working in a small restaurant dining room may have a different opportunity to observe the customers than employees working at a bustling nightclub service station. Understanding those differences helps place the evidence into the proper context of operation.
Trustworthy opinions can’t fill in gaps using assumptions
The laws regarding dram-shops are different in each state. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the same as a legal determination. The best analysis will explain what the employees did in the manner that was recognized as a service practice were necessary, and what conclusions are based on the evidence.
Sometimes the records reveal the absence of established procedures. Sometimes, the records demonstrate that employees followed 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. It allows the court to discern what was going on inside the establishment prior to the time of the night was over.