Bartenders in nightclubs are trained and are able to write alcohol policies down, and have an experienced manager on every shift. These safeguards might look comforting when they are incorporated in an employee manual.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is crowded, with several bartenders serving the same number of patrons, and the floor manager manages the crowd and customers who are ordering drinks at various places. Who is responsible for determining if an individual shouldn’t drink in the future?
This is a more important issue in dram shops litigation more than just determining the quantity of drinks being sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin With What Staff could be seeing
Dram Shop expert witnesses will examine whether the alcohol service decision-making of employees was conforming to industry standards and circumstances.
The intoxication of a customer does not establish, by itself that the bartender noticed warning signs while serving. Investigative investigations must take into consideration the behavior of the client and the time of the service, observations by personnel, and any evidence.
Surveillance video footage could reveal problems walking, unusual movements, or even interactions with employees. The testimony of witnesses may provide context to the incident even though their recollections may be different. It is crucial to differentiate between what the investigators were aware of about an incident, and what personnel could have reasonably recognized in the moment.
One Tab isn’t a necessity. One Drinker
Understanding the reports at point of sale requires years of an understanding of hospitality. A customer can buy several rounds of beer for friends. A number of people could be involved in an order for bottle service. Separate bartenders might handle orders without knowing what another employee previously served.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
This study could identify instances where employees were able to spot intoxication or intervene. It may also identify areas where the evidence is not sufficient to establish who drank particular drinks.
Training Matters Only When It is completed on the floor.
While employee certificates are important but they do not always accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a particular shift.
Investigating whether the training is current, if employees understand intervention procedures and if managers are able to reinforce guidelines can be a part of an investigation.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, including management of nightclubs and bartending. He also provides advice on beverage programs.
He also holds 112 seller-server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional credentials.
This allows him to look at the training that employees received as well as the operational decisions they had to take. Bartenders, for example may be able detect a behaviour that is troubling, but not be given clear guidelines regarding how to report it or contact management. Therefore, the level of supervision just as important as an employee’s behavior.
Insurance investigations may ask similar questions.
A specialist witness in Liquor Liability usually will address the same operational problems for coverage counsel as well as insurers and defense attorneys. The terminology might differ but the primary investigation is still about alcohol service, employee conduct training, as well as supervision by management.
The complete review might include incident reports, written policies, video recording employee schedules, records of certification. It is not up to the expert to endorse the party that retains them. The expert must clarify what the evidence supports, identify relevant practices in the industry and accept any limitations.
Experience is a key factor in determining the reasons that are behind the records
Rideout has worked with plaintiffs and defendants across 11 states, to give testimony on hospitality, alcohol-related and other aspects.
The analysis he provides includes bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments, as well resorts, casinos and other locations in which alcohol is frequently served. Each place has different staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
A bartender in a small restaurant dining room may have a different chance to observe customers compared to employees at a busy nightclub’s service station. Knowing the differences can help place the evidence in its proper operational context.
The credibility of opinions doesn’t fill in holes with assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different in each jurisdiction. Operational expert testimony is not the same as a legal decision. The most accurate analysis explains what employees did in the past, what standards of service called for, and which conclusion the evidence can be relied upon to support.
Sometimes, records reveal a deviation from established procedures. Others records indicate that employees didn’t follow the correct procedures or left critical questions unanswered.
It is important to distinguish between the two when to evaluate alcohol-related lawsuits. A qualified expert’s report that is helpful does more than simply describe the event. It aids the court in understanding the decisions being made inside the restaurant before anyone knew how the night would end.