A receipt from the restaurant shows a patron having a drink or two. The next day, the same customer is in a serious crash. The receipt can be relevant to an attorney who is seeking to determine the potential liability of a Dramshop. The receipt does not necessarily establish that the restaurant served a clearly drunk client or that the employees failed to adhere to the proper procedure. What happened between the drink orders could be more clear.
Understanding the order of events requires an examination of the alcohol service as a hospitality business, not just taking note of the number of drinks consumed after an incident.
A receipt is a record of a sale and not a condition of the buyer
The point-of-sale record can be used to determine when the transaction took place, what beverages were purchased and what charges are assigned to a tab.
A receipt is not able to reveal what the client’s behavior was when served an alcohol drink. It may not establish who consumed each beverage and whether or not drinks were shared, nor what the bartender saw.
An experienced Expert Witness can help attorneys interpret these records alongside surveillance footage, employee statements, and other available evidence. It is vital to retrace the entire sequence of services without thinking that every purchase will be the entire story.
What are the things employees can actually see?
A central question in many alcohol-service disputes is whether staff could have a reason to believe the patron was intoxicated. The relevant observations might include impaired coordination, unusual speaking and a difficulty in maintaining equilibrium or noticeable behavioral changes.
These indicators require to be contextualized. The actions recorded in video surveillance may not be a result of alcohol. Investigators must also consider camera angles, quality of recording position of employees and whether particular behavior would be visible to the staff.
Preston Rideout brings experience as Bar manager, bartender and nightclub general manager and director of operations for bars to these evaluations. His experience in operations helps him connect recorded evidence to the roles and limitations of staff who work in hectic areas of hospitality.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
The majority of alcohol-related investigations are based on concerns about the preparation of employees. Did the establishment offer server-seller training? Was the establishment able instruct its employees on the signs of intoxication? Management explained the procedures for refusing to provide any additional services?
While these are questions that are vital to the Responsible Alcohol Service, looking over only training certificates may not suffice to answer them.
A venue might maintain detailed policies without consistently implementing them. Employees might have adhered to accepted service standards, even if the end result was disastrous.
A review of operations considers the information on training, employee testimony, management oversight, and the actions that were recorded during the incident. It is important for both lawyers representing defense and plaintiffs to discern between the existence of a policy and its application.
Timeline can provide answers to important questions
Think about a client being served by multiple bartenders at the same time during an evening of high activity. The first employee might have seen a typical behavior. After a shift change, another bartender might have served a different drink. A manager might have intervened in the future.
Without retracing the timeline these decisions may seem to be one continuous action of service. Looking over transaction records, staffing schedules surveillance footage, incident reports all together will help clarify who knew what and when. It’s better to find gaps in the footage or records rather than rely on speculation.
Lawful Liability and Industry Practice Are Different Concerns
Hospitality professionals are able to explain the recognized operating practices of a place and assess whether its actions are in line with these practices.
They don’t replace the legal responsibility of the court to determine the legal responsibility. The laws governing alcohol shops differ from state to as do the conditions that they can be brought into court.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting supports plaintiff and defense lawyers throughout the world through case review operational analysis, depositions, writing opinions as well as trial testimony. The work of the company focuses on alcohol-related decision-making, staff training, management practices, and other relevant hospitality operations.
The most rigorous analyses are able to explain what the evidence does not demonstrate.
The severity of an alcohol-related accident cannot be a conclusive indicator of the previous circumstances.
The attorney must know the documents available in the case, their limitations, and the expectations of employees under the conditions.
A thorough hospitality analysis will separate documented actions from assumed behaviours and explain which practices of the place are aligned or deviated from the norms. This helps courts determine what actually happened rather than solely relying on what became known following the fact.