Bartenders in nightclubs know their stuff, have alcohol policies written down, and have an experienced manager at every shift. The security measures may appear reassuring in a handbook of employees.
Imagine a busy Saturday night where several bartenders serve the same crowd or a floor manager handling a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who’s responsible for recognizing if someone shouldn’t be receiving alcohol in the future?
This question can reveal something more about a liquor store lawsuit than just the number of drinks that were sold.
For starters, staff are able to recognize the indications of an investigation into possible overservice.
Dram Shop expert witnesses will determine if the alcohol service decisions made by employees were conforming to the industry standard and other circumstances.
The intoxication of a customer cannot prove on its own that the bartender was aware of warning signs while serving. The investigation needs to consider the manner in which the customer behaved, the timing of service, employee observations and evidence available.
Surveillance footage may expose a person’s inability to walk, bizarre movements, or interaction with employees. The statements of witnesses can provide more information, but their recollections may differ. It is crucial to distinguish between what the investigators were aware of after the incident and what staff members could have reasonably recognized in the moment.
One tab isn’t always the same as One Drink
These records can be useful, but interpreting them requires hospitality experience. A customer might purchase several rounds of drinks for their friends. Bottle-service transactions could include more than one individual. Bartenders can process separate orders and not know the prior order placed by another employee.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
This analysis may identify moments when employees had the chance to recognize intoxication or intervene. It can also be used to determine situations in which the evidence is not enough to establish who had consumed specific drinks.
Training is only relevant until it reaches the floor
While certifications for employees are vital but they do not always accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a certain shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not employees are adequately trained, whether they know the correct intervention procedure and whether managers have reinforced policies.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years of experience in the hospitality sector, including bartending as well as nightclub management. He also offers advice on beverage programs.
He also has 112 seller-server certifications that cover 48 states as well as the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
This combination allows him both to look at the training that employees received, as well as the operational decisions that they faced. Bartenders, for instance could spot an issue but may not know how to contact management or report a denial of service. In the end, the degree of supervision is just as important as an employee’s behavior.
Insurance investigations may ask similar questions
A specialist witness for liquor liability typically is able to address the same operational issues for coverage counsel and insurers and defense attorneys. While the language used may differ the main issue in all cases is alcohol service and staff conduct.
An in-depth review can include incident reports and written policies. It may also include videos employees’ schedules, employee timetables or certification records. It is not the job of the expert to automatically endorse the entity that they are retained by. The expert should explain why the data supports, identify relevant practices in the business and accept any limitations.
Experience is a key factor in determining the reasons behind the records
Rideout has worked with defendants and plaintiffs in 11 states to provide testimony in hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related subjects.
His analysis addresses bars, nightclubs, restaurants, hotels resorts, casinos and other hospitality establishments where alcohol service is part of the everyday operations. Each place has its own unique management and staffing issues.
A bartender in a small restaurant dining room may be able to observe the customers than someone working in a packed nightclub’s service station. Knowing these differences will help put the evidence within the proper context of operation.
The credibility of a person’s opinion isn’t filled by making assumptions
Dram shop laws differ depending on location, and the operational expert testimony is not to be confused a legal determination of responsibility. The most thorough analysis will explain what employees did as well as what accepted practices for service called for, and which conclusions the available evidence reasonably confirms.
Sometimes, documents show a deviation from standard procedures. Others records indicate that employees didn’t follow the proper procedure or left critical questions unanswered.
If lawyers are evaluating claims related to alcohol this distinction is critical. Expert opinions are more than a description of the incident. The court can better understand how decisions were made within the establishment, even if nobody knew what the outcome would be.