A receipt from the restaurant shows a patron having a drink or two. A few hours later the same patron is in a serious crash. The receipt might be pertinent to an attorney looking into the possibility of liability for the dramshop. It doesn’t necessarily establish whether the restaurant served an intoxicated customer or if the employees failed to follow appropriate procedures. There’s a chance that the evidence will be more compelling by looking at the events that occurred between drinks.
In order to comprehend the flow of events, consider the alcohol service as a component of a hospitality business. It is not enough to simply take a look at the number of drinks consumed after an incident.
A receipt is a document of a sale and not a condition of the customer
The point-of-sale records is used to identify the date the transaction took place, what drinks were bought and the charges are assigned to a tab.
A receipt is not able to reveal the manner in which a customer behaved when they were served an alcohol drink. It’s not always possible to establish who drank the drinks, if they were shared, or even what the bartender noticed.
A qualified Expert Witness will assist attorneys in interpreting the documents and also the surveillance footage, employee testimony as well as any other evidence that is available. It is important to reconstruct the sequence of service without thinking that every purchase will be the entire story.
What are the things employees can actually see?
In a number of disputes concerning alcohol service, the most important issue is whether staff was able to establish that the customer was drinking. Some of the relevant indicators could be impairment in coordination, abnormal speech or speech patterns, difficulties maintaining equilibrium or any noticeable changes in behavior.
But these indicators need some context. One incident recorded on surveillance footage may have a reason that isn’t related to drinking alcohol. Investigators should consider the camera’s angle, the recording quality employees’ position and the extent to which a particular behaviour was observed by staff.
Preston Rideout brings experience as bar manager, bartender general manager of nightclubs, and director of bar operations to these evaluations. The operational knowledge he has gained helps him identify the roles and limitations of staff who work in hectic hospitality settings.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
In most alcohol-service investigation the questions revolve around the preparation of the employee. Does the establishment offer the seller-servers training for its employees? Did the establishment provide training to employees to recognize intoxication potential? Has management explained to employees the process to deny service?
These questions are central to Responsible alcohol service service, but reviewing training certificates alone may not answer them.
The facility may have rules in place, but fails to follow them consistently. In contrast an employee might have followed service standards even if it was tragic.
A look at the operational elements includes documents for training, employee testimony, management oversight and actions documented during an incident. It is crucial for attorneys representing the plaintiffs and defense to recognize the difference between the existence and effectiveness of the policy and the implementation of it.
Timeline often answers crucial questions
Take a look at a customer who gets drinks from a variety of bartenders throughout an event that is crowded. It is possible that the first employee noticed a regular manner of conduct. Following a shift change the second employee might have served a drink. Managers could have intervened.
It is possible to make these decisions appear to be one continuous act of service without retracing the timeline. Retrospectively reviewing transaction records, staffing schedules, surveillance footage, and incident reports all together will help identify who was in charge and when. It is better to determine the missing files or videos, instead of guessing.
Industry Practice and legal Liability are two distinct issues
Hospitality professionals can help explain and assess whether a place is following recognized operating procedures.
The court has the obligation of determining the legal liability. The laws that govern alcohol stores differ from state to and so do the terms under which they may be brought into court.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting assists plaintiff and defendant lawyers across the country with reviews of cases, analyses of operations, writing opinions, and depositions. Its services address alcohol-related issues and staff training, as well as management techniques, and other relevant hospitality operations.
The most robust analysis explains what the evidence doesn’t show
Alcohol-related incidents can have serious consequences, but their severity can’t be assessed by all the evidence.
The attorney should be aware of the information available to him as well as their limitations and the expectations for employees in the conditions.
An in-depth analysis of hospitality can separate documented actions from assumptions and provides a clear explanation of where the hotel’s practices were in line with or diverged from recognized standards. This distinction permits courts to assess the circumstances rather than having to rely on only what was later discovered.
