Each nightclub needs to have trained bartenders and written alcohol guidelines. Also, they should have an experienced manager for each shift. In an employee handbook, these policies can be a source of comfort.
But imagine a packed Saturday night when several bartenders are serving the same patrons or a floor manager dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks from various locations. Who’s accountable for determining when somebody shouldn’t have alcohol or not?
In dram shop litigation, this issue can be more important than the number of drinks sold.
To begin with, staff are able to recognize the indications of an investigation into possible overservice.
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
The intoxication of a customer cannot prove by itself that the bartender was aware of warning signs while serving. The investigation must consider the behavior of the customer and the timing of service, employee observations and evidence available.
Surveillance footage may reveal difficulty walking, unusual movements or even interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide additional context, though recollections can differ. What is most important to differentiate between is the information investigators have learned after an incident, and what staff should have been aware of at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t Signify One Drink
The points-of-sale records can be useful, however they need experience in hospitality to understand. A single customer could purchase multiple rounds of drinks for their friends. Multiple people may be involved in bottle-service transactions. Separate bartenders may process orders without recognizing that another employee is serving the order.
A Alcohol expert witness will examine transaction times, beverage quantities as well as surveillance records and staffing records in order to establish an accurate timeline for service.
The analysis will reveal instances where employees might have intervened, or recognized that they were intoxicated. It is also a way to pinpoint situations where evidence is not enough to determine who drank certain beverages.
Training is only relevant until it reaches the floor
While certifications for employees are vital but they may not show how an organization operated during a particular shift.
The investigation of whether the training is current, if employees understand intervention procedures and if managers reinforce the procedures can form part of an investigation.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years of operational experience in the hospitality industry in this field, which includes bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
He also has 112 seller-server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
This combination allows him both to review the training staff received as well as the operational decisions they made. Bartenders, for example, may recognize an issue but may not know how to contact management or document a denial of services. Therefore, the level of supervision is just as important as an employee’s behavior.
Insurance investigations might ask similar questions.
A expert witness in Liquor Liability often deals with the same operational issues for coverage counsel, insurers and defense lawyers. While the terms used could differ, the case is still focused on alcohol service, employee conduct supervision of management, as well as training.
A thorough review could include incidents reports as well as written policies. It could also contain video recordings of employee schedules, employee calendars or other certification records. The responsibility of the expert is not to automatically support the party in the process of retaining the expert. It’s about describing the reasons for their findings and to identify industry practices that are relevant and identify the significant limitations.
The Experience of the past explains the reasoning that led to the records
Rideout has partnered with plaintiffs and defendants in 11 states in the past to testify on alcohol-service, hospitality and other matters.
His study is a comprehensive look at restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, as well as resorts, hotels, casinos and other hospitality settings which serve alcohol on a every day basis. Each place is distinct in terms of staffing and issues with supervision.
The bartender in a small dining room in an eatery may have different opportunities to observe the customers compared to a nightclub employee who works at a busy service station. Understanding the distinctions will enable you to place evidence in the proper operational context.
It is not possible to fill in gaps with assumptions
Dram-shop laws are different across all jurisdictions. Operational expert testimony is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The most thorough analysis will explain the actions of employees as well as what accepted practices for service required, and which conclusion the evidence confirms.
Sometimes records show a deviation from the standard procedure. In other instances, they prove that employees followed the appropriate procedures or left important questions unanswered.
In the case of attorneys who evaluate alcohol-related claims, that distinction matters. A qualified expert’s report that is helpful does more than simply describe the event. It helps the court know what was going on inside the establishment before the end of the night.
