Bartenders in nightclubs know their stuff and have alcohol policy written down, and an experienced manager for each shift. Those safeguards may look reassuring in a manual for employees.
Imagine a crowded Saturday night where several bartenders are serving the same crowd. The floor manager is dealing with the issue, and customers take orders from a variety of places. Who has the responsibility to recognize when someone is no longer a candidate for alcohol?
This could reveal more about a dram store lawsuit other than simply knowing how many bottles have been sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin with What Staff members might see
Dram Shop expert witnesses will analyze whether the alcohol service employee’s decisions were conforming to the industry standard and conditions.
The presence of alcohol in a person cannot prove on its own, that the bartender saw warning signs when serving. Investigations must take into account what the customer’s behavior was, the timing of the service, any observations made by staff, as well as any other evidence.
Surveillance footage could reveal an inability to walk, bizarre actions, or even interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide further background, however their perceptions may differ. The important distinction is between what investigators know following an incident, and what the staff could reasonably have recognized in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Always Mean One Drink
The record of the sale at the point-of-sale can be useful, however they require experience with hospitality to interpret. Customers can purchase several rounds of beer for their friends. Many people can be involved in an order for bottle service. Bartenders can take separate orders without knowing the previous order of an employee.
Alcohol experts can examine quantity of drinks consumed and transaction times as well as surveillance recordings as well as staffing information to make a better timeline for service.
This investigation could reveal times when employees were able to intervene or realize that they were intoxicated. It is also a way to determine situations in which the evidence isn’t sufficient to establish who had consumed specific drinks.
The Floor is where the training takes place.
While certifications for employees are vital however, they don’t always reflect how an establishment operated during a particular shift.
An investigation may consider whether training was current, whether employees were aware of the procedures to intervene and whether supervisors reinforced the policies of the establishment.
Preston Rideout brings approximately three decades of hospitality operations experience to this work, including bartending, nightclub management, and beverage-program consulting.
His professional qualifications also show that he has 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states, in addition to the District of Columbia.
The combination of these two allows him to look at both the training that employees received and their operational decision-making. For instance, a bartender might recognize concerning behavior but lack clear direction about contacting management or logging a denial of service. The adequacy of supervision can therefore become just as important as the employee’s personal actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor liability often discuss the same operational concerns for insurance companies as well as defense counsel and coverage attorneys. The terms may vary, but the underlying investigation still concerns alcohol service, employee conduct education, training, and supervision by management.
An exhaustive review can include incident reports, written policy documents, video recordings and employee schedules. It could also include certification records, and deposition testimony. The role of an expert isn’t to be a force for the person in the process of retaining the expert. It is to explain what the evidence supports and identify the relevant practices in the industry and recognize the limitations that are significant.
Experience can help explain the reasoning that are behind the documents
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related and hospitality matters across eleven states, working with both plaintiff and defense counsel.
The analysis he provides includes bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments and resorts, as well as casinos and other locations in which alcohol is regularly served. Each place has different structure of staffing and challenges for supervisors.
A bartender working in a small restaurant’s dining room may be better able to look over customers than an employee of a counter service at a nightclub. Understanding those differences helps place the evidence within the proper context of operation.
It is not possible to fill in gaps by making assumptions
Dram shop laws differ depending on the jurisdiction and expert testimony should not be confused with the legal definition of responsibility. The most thorough analysis will explain what employees did in the past, what standards of service required, and what conclusions the evidence confirms.
Sometimes, documents show the fact that a change was made from the standard procedure. They could also reveal that an employee complied with the correct guidelines or failed to answer key questions.
When lawyers evaluate claims involving alcohol it is important to distinguish between the two. An expert’s opinion that is useful does more than simply describe the event. It helps the court discern what was going on inside the premises even before the end of the night.