Every nightclub should be equipped with trained bartenders as well as written alcohol guidelines. They also need a knowledgeable manager for every shift. The security measures may appear comforting when they are incorporated in the employee handbook.
But imagine a packed Saturday night where several bartenders are serving the same group while a floor supervisor is dealing with a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks at different places. Who will be responsible to determine when a person is no longer eligible to drink alcohol?
This question is more telling in the context of dram shops litigation, rather instead of merely determining the amount of drinks sold.
The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to determine what the staff could see
Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether the decisions made regarding alcohol-related services were consistent with the accepted industry standard and the actual situations employees faced.
An eventual drunkenness of a client does not, by itself, establish that a bartender observed distinct warning signs in the course of service. The investigation should look at the manner in which the customer behaved, the service timing, and the bartender’s observations.
Surveillance video may show employees interacting with each or with one another, doing unusual moves or unable to walk. The testimony of witnesses may provide context to the incident, even if recollections are different. There is a significant distinction between the information that investigators have after an incident and what the personnel would reasonably have known in the moment.
One tab isn’t always the same as One Drinker
The records at the point of sale are useful, but they need experience in hospitality to read. Customers can purchase several glasses of beer for friends. Bottle-service transactions may be performed by more than one person. Bartenders can process orders in separate locations without being aware that another employee is serving the order.
Alcohol expert witnesses can review time of transactions, quantities of alcohol consumed video surveillance, as well as records of staffing to create a complete timeline.
This type of analysis can reveal instances when employees had an opportunity to recognize intoxication or intervene. It can also reveal where the evidence is insufficient to determine who consumed particular drinks.
The floor is where the Training takes place.
While certifications for employees are vital, they do not always reveal how a business operated during a certain shift.
An investigation may consider whether training was current, whether employees were aware of the procedures to intervene and whether the managers emphasized the establishment’s policies.
Preston Rideout brings approximately three decades of operational experience in the hospitality industry in this field, which includes bartending, managing nightclubs, and even beverage-program consultation.
Professionally, his qualifications show that he has 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states, in addition to the District of Columbia.
The combination of the two lets him examine the amount of training employees received as well as their actual choices. For example the bartender may be aware of an issue with his behavior, but may not have instructions on how to contact management or reporting a refusal of service. The quality of supervision could consequently be as significant as the individual behavior of the employee.
Insurance investigations may pose similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. The terminology might differ however the core inquiry still involves the alcohol service, conduct of staff, training, and oversight of management.
A comprehensive review may include incidents reports as well as written policies. This could also include videos of employee schedules, employee calendars or other certification records. It is not up to the expert to automatically approve the party that retains them. The expert should explain why the data supports, identify relevant practices in the industry and recognize any limitations.
The experience of the past helps explain the rationale that drive the documents
Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality cases across eleven states. He has worked on behalf of both plaintiffs and defense attorneys.
His research covers bars, nightclubs and hotels in addition to resorts, casinos and other locations in which alcohol is frequently served. Each setting has its own issues with staffing and supervision.
A bartender working in a tiny dining area of the restaurant might be able to see different aspects of patrons than a nightclub worker who works at a busy service station. Understanding the differences will aid in determining the proper operational context.
An opinion that is credible doesn’t fill the gaps by assuming assumptions.
Dram shop laws differ by regions. Expert testimony from operational experts shouldn’t be taken as legal advice. The most thorough analysis should explain the activities of the employees and what recognized practices were needed, and what conclusions can be based on the evidence.
Sometimes, records show that an error occurred from the prescribed procedure. Sometimes, the records reveal that employees followed proper guidelines or left crucial questions unanswered.
This distinction is essential for lawyers who have to evaluate allegations involving alcohol. A good expert opinion does more than merely describe the situation. It aids the court in understanding the decisions that were made in the establishment before anyone knew how the night would conclude.