Nightclubs may employ bartenders who know their stuff with alcohol-related policies, written down, and have an experienced manager at every shift. A handbook for employees contains these policies can be a source of comfort.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night when several bartenders are serving the same patrons or a floor manager dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who is responsible for determining if anyone shouldn’t be drinking in the future?
This issue is more relevant in dram shops litigation instead of merely determining the amount of drinks being sold.
At first, the staff will be able recognize signs of an investigation into possible overservice.
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether alcohol-related decisions are in accordance with industry standards and the actual situations employees encountered.
The fact that a client is drunk cannot prove on its own that the bartender spotted warning signs while serving. Investigations must take into account what the customer’s behavior was and the time of service, the observation of staff, and any available evidence.
Surveillance footage can show an inability to walk, odd movements, or interactions with employees. Witness statements can provide additional context, although recollections may differ. The important distinction is between the information that investigators have following an incident, and what the staff could reasonably have known in the moment.
One Tab isn’t a necessity. One Drink
The record of the sale at the point-of-sale can be helpful, but they require hospitality experience to interpret. One customer may purchase multiple rounds of drinks for their friends. Bottle-service transactions could involve more than one person. Bartenders can process orders in separate locations without recognizing that another employee is serving the order.
Alcohol experts are able to look at the duration of transactions, drinks consumed as well as video surveillance and records of staffing to establish a complete timeline.
The study could uncover instances when employees were able intervene or recognize the fact that they were drunk. It is also a way to find instances where evidence is not sufficient to establish who had consumed specific beverages.
The floor is where Training Matters.
While employee certificates are important but they may not show how an organization operated during a specific shift.
An investigation may consider whether training was in order, whether employees understood intervention procedures, and whether managers reinforced the establishment’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 holds 112 seller server certifications covering 48 states and the District of Columbia.
That combination allows him to examine both the training employees received and the operational decisions they made. For example, a bartender might recognize some issues, but not have clear directions on how to communicate with management or recording a refusal of service. The adequacy of supervision can be just as crucial as the employee’s individual actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
Expert witnesses in Liquor liability often answer the same operational issues for insurers as well as defense counsel and coverage lawyers. The terminology might differ, but the underlying investigation is still about alcohol service, employee conduct, training, and supervision by management.
The complete review might include incident reports, written policies, video recording schedules for employees, and documents for certification. It’s not the role of the expert to automatically endorse the entity that they are retained by. The expert must explain what the evidence supports, identify relevant practices in the industry and accept any limitations.
Experience helps explain the decisions That Drive the Records
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol service and hospitality cases across eleven states. He has worked with both plaintiff and defense lawyers.
His analysis includes bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments in addition to resorts, casinos and other locations in which alcohol is regularly served. Each environment has different supervisory and staffing challenges.
A bartender serving a small dining room in a restaurant could have different opportunities to observe customers compared to an employee working a crowded nightclub’s service station. Understanding these differences can help place the evidence in the proper context of operation.
A Credible Opinion Can’t Fill the gaps by assuming assumptions.
Dram shop laws are different according to the jurisdiction in which they are located. Expert statements from operational experts cannot be interpreted as legal advice. The most comprehensive analysis clarifies the actions of employees, what recognized service practices called for, and which conclusion the evidence confirms.
Sometimes, documents show a deviation from established procedures. Some records reveal employees didn’t adhere to the proper procedure or left important questions unanswered.
It is important to distinguish between the two when in evaluating claims involving alcohol. Expert opinions are more than a summary of the incident. The court will be able to better comprehend the decisions made in the institution, even if nobody knew what the outcome would be.
