Every nightclub must have trained bartenders and written alcohol policies. They should also have an experienced manager for each shift. They may be described as reassuring in a manual for employees.
Imagine a Saturday night when several bartenders service the same patrons. The floor manager is dealing with problems, and customers order rounds from multiple places. Who is accountable to recognize when someone is no longer a candidate for alcohol?
This is a more important issue in the dram shop litigation process than simply determining the quantity of drinks that are sold.
The first step in investigating overservice is to find out what staff members might be seeing.
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether the alcohol-service decisions were in line with recognized industry practice and the actual circumstances that employees had to deal with.
A person’s intoxication may not in itself demonstrate that a bartender saw recognizable warning signs during service. The investigation should consider the behavior of the customer as well as the timing of service, observations by staff and any evidence that is available.
Surveillance footage may reveal difficulty walking, unusual movements or interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide further details, though their memories may differ. The important distinction is between what investigators know after an incident and what personnel could reasonably have recognized in the moment.
One Tab isn’t a necessity. One Drinker
Understanding the reports at point of sale requires years of knowledge of hospitality. One customer may purchase multiple rounds of drinks for their buddies. Multiple people may be involved in the transaction of a bottle. Separate bartenders could complete orders without knowing the name of an employee has previously done.
An Alcohol expert witness can examine transaction times, beverage quantities, surveillance recordings, and staffing records to develop a more complete service timeline.
The analysis may reveal instances when employees could have intervened, or recognized that they were intoxicated. It can also be used to pinpoint situations where evidence isn’t sufficient to determine who drank certain beverages.
Training Is Important Only When It Reaches the Floor
The certifications of employees are vital but they’re not a guarantee to reveal how a location operated during a particular shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not employees have been trained, if they understand the intervention procedures and whether managers have reinforced policies.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, including bartending and nightclub management. He also offers drink program consultation.
According to his professional qualifications, he also holds 112 certifications for seller/server that encompass 48 states as well as the District of Columbia.
The combination of these two lets him examine the level of training employees received and their operational decisions. For instance Bartenders may recognize concerning behavior but lack clear direction about contacting management or reporting a refusal of service. Therefore, it is important to consider the supervisor’s ability to manage.
Insurance Investigations may ask similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor Liability usually address the same operational questions for insurers attorneys, coverage counsel, and defense lawyers. Even though the terms used might differ, the examination is still focused on alcohol service, employee conduct control, management oversight, as well as training.
A comprehensive review may include incidents reports as well as written policies. It could also contain video recordings of employee schedules, employee calendars or other certification records. It is not the job of the expert to endorse the person who retains them. The expert must explain what the data supports, describe relevant practices in the field and be aware of any limitations.
Experience explains the reasons that led to the records
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related and hospitality matters in eleven states, working with both defense and plaintiff counsel.
His study covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments and resorts, as well as casinos and other locations where alcohol is frequently served. Each environment presents different management structures and supervisory problems.
A bartender in a small dining room in a restaurant could have a different opportunity to observe patrons than someone working in a packed nightclub’s service station. Understanding the differences will enable you to place evidence in the proper operational context.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill the gaps by assuming assumptions.
Dram shop laws vary by jurisdiction, and operational expert testimony is not to be confused an official determination of the responsibility. The most robust analyses clarify what employees did and the types of service practices needed. They also support the conclusions that can be reasonably made from the data.
Sometimes, records indicate the fact that a change is observed from established procedure. Others records indicate that employees did not adhere to the correct procedures or left crucial questions unanswered.
It is essential to distinguish between the two for lawyers to evaluate alcohol-related lawsuits. A good expert opinion does more than merely describe the situation. It allows the judge to be aware of what was happening in the establishment prior to the time of the night was over.