Bartenders at nightclubs are are trained and have alcohol policy written down, and an experienced manager at every shift. They can appear as reassuring when they are included in a manual for employees.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night, where multiple bartenders are serving the same patrons or a floor manager handling a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds from various locations. Who will be responsible to identify when someone is no longer eligible for alcohol?
This type of question could reveal something more about a liquor store lawsuit than simply finding out how many drinks were sold.
Overservice investigations begin with what Staff could be seeing
Dram Shop expert witnesses will investigate whether the alcohol-related choices made by employees were in accordance with industry standards and conditions.
A customer’s eventual intoxication does not in itself show that a bartender spotted recognizable warning signs during service. The investigation needs to consider what the customer’s behaviour was, the timing of service, staff observations and evidence available.
Surveillance footage may have employees engaging with each with each other, performing strange movements or unable to walk. Witnesses’ testimony can add context to the situation even if their memories are differing. It is crucial to distinguish between what investigators knew after the incident and what personnel could reasonably have known at the time.
One Tab Doesn’t Always Mean One Drink
These records can be useful however, understanding them require experience with hospitality. A customer could buy several glasses of beer for friends. A bottle-service purchase could include multiple customers. Bartenders can be separate and handle orders without knowing what another employee previously served.
A Alcohol expert witness is able to examine the duration of transactions, alcohol consumption as well as surveillance records and the staffing record to determine the complete timeline of services.
This type of analysis can reveal instances when employees had an opportunity to spot intoxication or intervene. It may also identify areas where the evidence isn’t sufficient to determine who had consumed specific drinks.
Training is only relevant when it Gets to the Floor
The certification of employees is vital, but it does not automatically determine how a venue was run during a particular shift.
A thorough investigation can determine if training was current, whether employees knew the correct procedures for intervention and whether supervisors reinforced the company’s policies.
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 has 112 seller-server certifications covering 48 states and the District of Columbia.
This allows him to review the training staff received as well as the operational decisions they had to take. For example, a bartender might recognize an issue with his behavior, but may not have guidelines for contacting management or recording a refusal of service. This means that the level of supervision just as important as an employee’s behavior.
Insurance investigations could ask similar questions.
A expert witness in Liquor Liability frequently examines the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel defense lawyers, and coverage counsel. While the terms used could be different, the investigation remains focused on alcohol services, employee conduct supervision of management, as well as training.
A detailed review could comprise incidents reports as well as written policies. They could also comprise video recordings employees’ schedules, employee timetables or certificates. The role of an expert isn’t to automatically support the party retaining the expert. The expert must clarify what the data suggests, and identify relevant practices in the field and be aware of any limitations.
Experience is the reason for the decisions that led to the records
Rideout has served as an alcohol service witness and hospitality cases across 11 states. He has worked on behalf of both plaintiffs and defense attorneys.
His analysis covers bars, restaurants and nightclubs along with casinos, resorts, hotels and other settings for hospitality that serve alcohol on a every day basis. Each environment presents different management structures and supervisory problems.
A bartender in a smaller dining room in an eatery may have different opportunities to observe customers compared to a nightclub employee working at a bustling service station. Knowing the difference will assist you in placing evidence into its proper context.
Credible opinions don’t fill in holes with assumptions
Dram shop laws are different according to regions. Expert evidence from experts in operational matters should not be mistaken for legal advice. The most accurate analysis explains the actions of employees in the past, what standards of service required, and which conclusions the available evidence supports.
Sometimes the records reveal an infraction to established procedures. In other instances, they reveal that employees followed proper guidelines or left crucial questions unanswered.
It is important to distinguish between these two types of lawyers when looking at alcohol-related claims. A useful expert opinion does more than just describe the event. The court is able to understand how decisions were made within the establishment, even though no one knew what the outcome would be.