Bartenders in nightclubs have been trained and are able to write alcohol policies down, and have an experienced supervisor at each shift. A handbook for employees contains these policies can be a source of comfort.

But imagine a packed Saturday night, where multiple bartenders are serving the same group and a floor manager is managing a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds at different places. Who’s responsible for determining if an individual shouldn’t drink in the future?

In dram shop litigation, this issue can be more revealing than simply finding out how many drinks were sold.

The first step in investigating overservice is to look at what the staff members could be seeing

Dram Shop expert witnesses will determine if the alcohol service decision-making of employees was conforming to the industry standard and conditions.

The presence of alcohol in a person is not proof, on its own that the bartender noticed warning signs when serving. The investigation must consider the customer’s behavior as well as the timing of service, employee observations, and available evidence.

Surveillance footage may show an inability to walk, bizarre movements, or interactions with employees. Witness testimony can provide additional details, however recollections of events may differ. There is a significant distinction between what the investigators learn after an incident and what staff reasonably could have known in the moment.

One tab doesn’t necessarily mean One Drink

The record of the sale at the point-of-sale are useful, but they require a background in hospitality to understand. A single customer might purchase multiple rounds of wine for friends. Many people can be involved in the transaction of a bottle. Bartenders who are separate from each other can take orders without recognizing that another employee has served the order.

Alcohol experts are able to examine the amounts of alcohol consumed and the time it took to complete transactions and also surveillance records and information on staffing in order to establish a better time-line for service.

The analysis will reveal instances when employees could have intervened, or recognized that they were intoxicated. It also can reveal instances when the evidence isn’t sufficient to establish who drank particular drinks.

Training Matters Only When It Is Applied to the Floor

Although certifications of employees are crucial however, they don’t always accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a specific shift.

The investigation of whether the training is current, if employees know the correct procedures for intervention, and whether managers have a strong understanding of the policies could be part of an investigation.

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 has 112 seller-server certificates for 48 states plus the District of Columbia.

This combination allows him review the training his employees received as well as the operational decisions they faced. Bartenders, as an example could be able to spot a pattern which is troubling but not be given clear guidelines regarding how to report the incident or reach management. This means that the level of supervision just as important as an employee’s behavior.

Insurance Investigations may ask similar Questions

A Liquor liability specialist witness frequently is able to address the same operational issues for coverage counsel and insurers and defense attorneys. While the terms used could differ, the case is still centered on alcohol service, employee conduct supervision of management, as well as training.

The comprehensive review may include incident reports, written policies, video recording schedules for employees, and certificates. It’s not the expert’s job to support a party who wants them. The expert should explain why the evidence supports, identify pertinent practices within the industry and recognize any limitations.

Experience explains the reasoning that are behind the Records

Rideout has served as an expert witness in alcohol service and hospitality matters in 11 states. He has acted as a witness for plaintiffs as well as defense lawyers.

His study focuses on bars nightclubs, restaurants, hotels resorts, casinos, and other hospitality settings that have alcohol services as part of the day-to-day operations. Each setting has its own issues with staffing and supervision.

The bartender in a small dining room of the restaurant might 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.

The credibility of opinions doesn’t fill in the gaps by relying on assumptions

The laws for a dram shop differ in each jurisdiction. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the same as a legal determination. The strongest analysis explains what employees did, what recognized service practices required, and which conclusions the evidence is able to back.

Sometimes, the records show deviations from established procedures. The records also show that employees didn’t follow the right procedures or left important questions unanswered.

It is crucial to differentiate between these two when lawyers are in evaluating claims involving alcohol. An expert’s opinion is more than a description of the incident. The court is able to understand the decisions made in the establishment, even if no one knew what the outcome would be.