A nightclub could have trained bartenders with written alcohol policy, and a skilled manager on every shift. These safeguards might look comforting when they are incorporated in an employee manual.
But imagine a crowded Saturday night where several bartenders serve the same crowd or a floor manager managing a disturbance, and customers are ordering drinks from different locations. Who will decide when a person should not drink alcohol?
This question can reveal more about a dram shop lawsuit than simply finding out how many drinks were sold.
To begin with, staff can see the signs of an investigation into possible overservice.
Dram Shop expert witnesses will investigate whether the alcohol-related employee’s decisions were in accordance with industry standards and the circumstances.
Intoxication alone is not enough to prove that the bartender knew of the warning indications. The investigation must consider the customer’s behavior as well as the timing of service, staff observations as well as evidence.
Surveillance video may capture employees having conversations with one other, making unusual movements or having difficulty walking. The testimony of witnesses may add context to the situation, even if recollections are different. It is important to distinguish between what investigators learned about an incident, and what staff could have reasonably expected to know in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t Mean One Drinker
Point-of-sale records are useful however understanding them requires hospitality experience. One customer may purchase multiple rounds of drinks to share with their friends. A bottle-service transaction could be involving multiple individuals. Separate bartenders could process orders without knowing what another employee previously served.
A Alcohol expert witness can examine the time of transactions, beverages consumed recorded by surveillance cameras, as well as staffing records to develop an accurate timeline for service.
The analysis will reveal instances in which employees might have intervened or recognized intoxication. It can also reveal where there is no evidence to establish who drank particular beverages.
Training Matters Only When It Reaches the Floor
The certification of employees is vital however, it doesn’t instantly determine how a location operated on a specific shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not the employees are adequately trained, whether they know the correct intervention procedure, and if managers have implemented policies that have been reinforced.
Preston Rideout has over 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, including bartending and managing nightclubs. He also provides drinks program consultancy.
Professionally, his credentials show that he is the owner of 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states, plus the District of Columbia.
The combination allows him to review the training his employees received and the decisions they made. For example, a bartender might recognize the problem but have no clear instructions on how to contact management or recording a refusal of service. As a result, the degree of supervision is equally important as the employee’s actions.
Insurance investigations may ask similar inquiries.
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. Although the language may vary the main issue in all cases is the alcohol service and staff behavior.
An exhaustive review can include incident reports, written guidelines recordings of video employee schedules, certification records, and deposition testimony. It is not up to an expert to automatically appoint the entity that they are retained by. It’s to clarify what the evidence supports and to identify industry practices that are relevant, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.
Experience can help explain the reasoning behind the records
Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality matters in 11 states. He has worked for both the plaintiff and defense attorneys.
His analysis addresses bars, nightclubs, restaurants, resorts, casinos, and other venues where alcohol service is part of daily operations. Every setting presents its own distinct staffing structures and supervisory challenges.
A bartender working in a tiny dining room in a restaurant could be able to observe the customers than an employee working a crowded nightclub service station. Knowing the differences can help place the evidence within its proper operational context.
Credible opinion doesn’t fill gaps with assumptions
Dram shop laws are different according to the jurisdiction in which they are located. Expert evidence from experts in operational matters cannot be interpreted as legal advice. The most robust analyses clarify the actions of employees and the types of service practices required. They also provide conclusions that are able to be made from the data.
Sometimes, the records reveal that an error occurred from the accepted procedure. In other instances, they demonstrate that employees followed appropriate guidelines or left crucial questions unanswered.
This distinction is important when lawyers are evaluating allegations involving alcohol. An expert’s opinion that is useful does more than simply describe the event. The court will be able to better comprehend the decisions taken in the establishment, even if no one knew what the final outcome would be.
