Bartenders in nightclubs know their stuff and have alcohol policy written down, and an experienced manager on every shift. In a handbook for employees, these policies can be a source of comfort.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is busy, with several bartenders serving a group of patrons, and an employee on the floor manages an issue and customers are ordering drinks at various places. Who’s accountable for determining when an individual shouldn’t drink in the future?
This type of question could reveal something more about a liquor store lawsuit other than simply determining how many drinks have been sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin with What Staff could be seeing
Dram Shop expert witnesses will examine whether the alcohol service employee’s decisions were in line with industry standards and conditions.
Intoxication alone is not enough to establish that the bartender knew of the warning indications. The investigation must consider what the customer’s behavior was, the timing of the service, observations by staff, as well as any other evidence.
Surveillance video footage could reveal problems walking, unusual movements, or even interactions with employees. Statements from witnesses may provide more detail, even though their memories may differ. It is crucial to distinguish between what the investigators were aware of about an incident, and what the staff could have reasonably recognized in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Mean One Drinker
The points-of-sale records are helpful, but they need experience in hospitality to understand. A customer could buy several rounds of beer for friends. Multiple people may be involved in an order for bottle service. Different bartenders could process orders without recognizing that a different employee was serving the order.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
The study could uncover instances in which employees were able intervene or detect that they were intoxicated. The analysis could also reveal that there isn’t enough evidence to determine the individual who consumed the particular drink.
Training Matters Only When It Gets to the Floor
Certifications of employees are crucial but they’re not enough to define how a facility operated during a particular shift.
An investigation may consider whether training was current, whether employees were aware of the procedures to intervene, and whether managers reinforced the establishment’s policies.
Preston Rideout brings more than three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
Based on his professional credentials, he also holds 112 seller/server certificates that are valid for 48 states and District of Columbia.
This allows him to examine both the training employees received and the operational decisions they made. For instance the bartender may be aware of some issues, but not have clear guidelines for contacting management or documenting a refusal of service. In the end, the level of supervision just as important as an employee’s actions.
Insurance investigations may ask similar questions.
A Liquor liability expert witness typically examines the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel defense lawyers, and coverage counsel. The terminology could differ however the core investigation is still about alcohol service, staff conduct training, as well as supervision by management.
A thorough review could comprise incident reports, written policies and procedures, videos employees’ schedules, certificates, records, and deposition testimony. It is not up to an expert to automatically appoint the person who retains them. It is to explain the evidence that supports it as well as identify pertinent industry practices, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.
Experience Explains the Decisions that led to the records
Rideout has partnered with plaintiffs and defendants in 11 states to provide testimony in hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related subjects.
His research covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments in addition to resorts, casinos and other places in which alcohol is frequently served. Each environment is unique with regard to staffing and the challenges of supervision.
Bartenders working in a tiny restaurant’s dining room may have a better opportunity to look over customers than an employee at a nightclub service counter. Knowing the differences will allow you to understand the data in its proper context.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill The gaps by making assumptions.
The laws for a liquor shop vary based on location, and the operational expert testimony is not to be confused with a legal determination of the liability. The most thorough analyses describe what employees did and the types of service practices required. They also support the conclusion that can be made from the data.
Sometimes, records reveal a deviation from the standard procedure. They may also indicate that an employee adhered to the proper methods or did not respond to key questions.
For attorneys evaluating alcohol-related claims it is important to distinguish between the two. A reliable expert opinion can do more than describe the incident. The court can better understand how decisions were made within the establishment, even though nobody could tell what the outcome would be.