Each nightclub needs to have trained bartenders and written alcohol guidelines. Additionally, they need an experienced manager for each shift. These safeguards could be reassured in a manual for employees.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night, when multiple bartenders serve the same crowd while a floor supervisor is managing a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds from different locations. Who has the responsibility to determine when a person is no longer eligible for alcohol?
This aspect is more crucial in the dram shop litigation process more than just determining the quantity of drinks being sold.
In the beginning, employees will be able recognize signs of an investigation for overservice.
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related choices were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually confronted.
An eventual drunkenness of a client does not by itself demonstrate that a bartender saw obvious warning signs while serving. The investigation should consider what the customer’s behavior was, as well as the timing of service and staff observations.
Surveillance video footage could reveal problems walking, unusual movements, or interactions with employees. Witness statements can provide additional context, although recollections may differ. The most important thing to distinguish between is what investigators have learned following an incident, and what the staff ought to have known at the time.
One tab doesn’t always mean One Drink
Point-of-sale records are useful, but interpreting them requires a lot of experience in the hospitality industry. A single person could buy multiple rounds of wine for friends. Bottle-service transactions could require more than one person. Different bartenders could process orders without recognizing that another employee was serving the order.
Alcohol expert witnesses can review transaction times, drink quantities, surveillance video, and staffing records in order to develop a comprehensive timeline.
This analysis may reveal moments when employees were able to intervene or recognize that they were intoxicated. It may also identify areas where there is no evidence to determine who had consumed specific beverages.
The floor is where the training takes place.
Although employee certifications are essential but they do not always accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a particular shift.
An investigation might examine whether the training was up-to-date, if employees knew the correct procedures for intervention and whether the managers emphasized 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.
The professional credentials of his work also indicate that he holds 112 seller server certificates that cover 48 states, and the District of Columbia.
This combination allows him both to analyze the instruction employees received as well as operational decisions they had to make. Bartenders for instance may be able recognize a behavior that is concerning but may not be provided with clear guidelines on how to report it, or even how to reach management. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the supervisor’s capability to manage.
Insurance investigations could ask similar questions.
A witness from the Liquor liability specialist usually is able to address the same operational issues for insurers and coverage counsel and defense attorneys. While the terms used could be different, the probe remains focused on the alcohol service, employee behavior control, management oversight, as well as training.
A detailed review could comprise incidents reports as well as written policies. They could also comprise video recordings as well as employee schedules and certification documents. The expert’s responsibility is not to imply that the company is retaining them. The expert must explain what the data supports, describe pertinent practices within the industry and recognize any limitations.
Experience can help explain the decision-making that are behind the Records
Rideout has partnered with plaintiffs and defendants in 11 states in the past to testify on hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related issues.
His analysis addresses bars, nightclubs, restaurants resorts, casinos, and other hospitality settings in which alcohol is a part of the daily operation. Each setting has its own unique staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
A bartender working in a tiny dining room at the restaurant might have different opportunities to observe customers compared to a nightclub employee working at a bustling service station. Understanding the distinctions will help you place evidence in the right operational context.
A credible opinion can’t fill in gaps with assumptions
Dram shop laws vary by jurisdiction, and operational expert testimony cannot be confused with an official determination of liability. The strongest analysis explains the actions of employees in the past, what standards of service called for, and the conclusions the available evidence reasonably is able to back.
Sometimes records show a deviation from the standard procedure. Others records indicate that employees did not adhere to the correct procedures or left critical questions unanswered.
If lawyers are evaluating claims related to alcohol the distinction is crucial. A qualified expert’s report which is valuable does more than just describe the event. The court can better understand the decisions made in the establishment, even if nobody could tell what the final outcome would be.