Bartenders in nightclubs are trained and are able to write alcohol policies down, and have an experienced manager at every shift. They may be described as reassuring in an employee handbook.
Imagine the night of a Saturday that’s busy, with several bartenders serving a group of people, while the floor manager is dealing with crowds and customers placing orders for drinks at various places. Who is accountable to identify when someone has ceased to be eligible for alcohol?
In the context of litigation involving dram shops, that question can be more informative than determining how many drinks were sold.
The first step in a probe into overservice is to see what staff members might be seeing.
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.
Intoxication is not enough to establish that the bartender was aware of warning indicators. The investigation must consider the behavior of the customer, the timing of service, staff observations, and available evidence.
Surveillance footage can uncover a lack of ability to walk, strange movement, or interaction with employees. The testimony of witnesses could provide context to the incident, even if recollections are different. It is essential to differentiate the information that investigators had after the incident and what the staff could have reasonably known in the moment.
One tab isn’t always the same as One Drinker
Interpreting point-of-sale reports requires experience in hospitality. A single customer might purchase several rounds for their friends. Many people can be involved in a bottle-service transaction. Bartenders can be separate and process orders without knowing what the previous employee did.
A Alcohol expert witness can review the duration of transactions, alcohol consumption as well as surveillance records and staffing records to create an accurate timeline for service.
The analysis can identify instances when employees could have acted or detected intoxication. It may also identify areas where the evidence is insufficient to determine who had consumed specific drinks.
Training is only relevant when it Gets to the Floor
The certification of employees is essential but it cannot necessarily determine how a place performed during a particular shift.
The investigation of whether the training is up-to-date, whether employees understand intervention procedures and if management is able to reinforce the policies could be part of the investigation.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years experience working in the hospitality sector, including bartending as well as nightclub management. He also offers beverage program consulting.
He also holds 112 seller-server certifications, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional credentials.
That combination allows him to look at the training that employees received as well as the operational decisions they had to make. Bartenders, for example may be able detect a behaviour that is troubling, but not be provided with clear guidelines regarding how to report the incident or reach management. The effectiveness of supervision may thus be as crucial as the employee’s personal actions.
Insurance Investigations may ask similar Questions
A expert witness in Liquor Liability typically is able to address the same operational concerns for coverage counsel, insurers and defense lawyers. The terminology might differ but the fundamental investigation is still about alcohol service, staff behavior training, as well as oversight of management.
A thorough review may include incidents reports, written policies, video recordings employees’ schedules, certificates, records, and deposition testimony. It’s not the expert’s duty to provide support to those who want them. It’s about describing what evidence is in support and identify the relevant practices in the industry and accept the significance of limitations.
The Experience of the past explains the reasoning that led to the records
Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality cases in eleven states. He has worked as a witness for plaintiffs as well as defense attorneys.
The analysis he provides includes bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments and resorts, as well as casinos and other settings in which alcohol is frequently served. Every setting is different in terms staffing and the challenges of supervision.
The bartender who works in a small dining room at a restaurant may be able to see different aspects of customers than a nightclub employee who works at a busy service station. Knowing these differences will help put the evidence into its proper operational context.
Trustworthy opinions can’t fill in holes with assumptions
The laws regarding dram-shops are different in each jurisdiction. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The most effective analysis will clarify the actions of employees and what recognized practices were needed, and what conclusions are based on the evidence.
Sometimes, the records reveal that a deviance has been made from the accepted procedure. Some records reveal employees didn’t adhere to the correct procedures or left critical questions unanswered.
This distinction is crucial for lawyers who are evaluating claims involving alcohol. An expert opinion is more than a narrative of the event. It helps the court understand the decision-making process inside the establishment before anyone knew what would happen next.