Every nightclub should have bartenders who are trained and abide by written alcohol policies. They should also have an experienced manager for each shift. These security measures could be reassuring when they are included in an employee’s manual.

Imagine the scene of a Saturday night packed, with bartenders serving the same number of patrons, and the floor manager is dealing with crowds and customers placing orders for drinks from different locations. Who is responsible to identify when someone is no longer eligible to drink alcohol?

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

Overservice investigations begin with what Staff Could See

A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-service decisions were consistent with recognized industry practices and the circumstances employees actually encountered.

It isn’t enough to show that the bartender was aware of warning indicators. The investigation should take into account the manner in which the customer behaved, the service timing, and the bartender’s observations.

Surveillance videos may reveal employees interfering with one with each other, performing strange movements or having trouble walking. Witness testimony can provide further context, although recollections may differ. The most important distinction is what the investigators learn after an incident and what the personnel would reasonably be aware of in the moment.

One Tab Doesn’t Have to Mean One Drink

Records of sales at the point of sale are helpful, but interpreting them requires hospitality experience. A customer can buy several rounds of beer for their friends. Bottle-service transactions can include more than one individual. Bartenders can process separate orders without knowing the previous order placed by another employee.

Alcohol experts can examine amount of alcohol consumed, the timing of transactions along with surveillance videos and information on staffing in order to establish a better time-line for service.

The analysis may reveal instances in which employees might intervened or identified intoxication. It also can reveal instances when the evidence isn’t sufficient to establish who consumed certain drinks.

Training is only relevant when it Reaches the Floor

The accreditation of employees is essential however it doesn’t instantly determine how a location operated on a specific shift.

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

Preston Rideout brings more than three decades of experience in hospitality operations in this field, which includes bartending, managing nightclubs, and consulting on beverage programs.

Based on his professional credentials according to his professional qualifications, he also holds 112 server/seller certifications, which include 48 states and the District of Columbia.

That combination allows him to analyze the training staff received and the decisions they faced. A bartender, for example, may recognize an issue but do not know how to contact management or report a denial of service. It is crucial to consider the supervisor’s ability to supervise.

The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions

Expert witnesses in Liquor liability often answer the same operational issues for insurance companies attorneys, coverage counsel, and defense lawyers. While the language used may differ the main issue in all cases is alcohol service and staff conduct.

A thorough review may include incident reports, written policies and procedures, videos employees’ schedules, certificates, records, and deposition witness testimony. It is not an expert’s responsibility to defend the person who is seeking them. It is to explain the evidence that supports it, identify relevant industry practices, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.

Experience can help explain the decision-making Behind the Records

Rideout has worked with plaintiffs and defendants in 11 states, to give testimony on hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related aspects.

His study covers bars, nightclubs, hotels and other establishments in addition to resorts, casinos and other settings in which alcohol is regularly served. Each setting is unique in terms of staffing requirements and management challenges.

A bartender in a smaller dining room of the restaurant might have different opportunities to observe customers than an employee of a nightclub working at a bustling service station. Understanding the differences will enable you to place evidence in its proper context.

Credible opinions don’t fill in gaps with assumptions

Dram-shop laws are different in each state. Expert testimony from an operational expert is not the equivalent to a legal ruling. The most effective analysis will clarify how the employees acted and what recognized practices were necessary, and what conclusions are reasonable based on the evidence.

Sometimes the records reveal some deviation from the established procedure. Sometimes, the records prove that employees followed the appropriate practices or leave important questions unanswered.

This distinction is important for lawyers who have to evaluate allegations involving alcohol. A qualified expert’s report that is useful does more than just describe the event. It helps the court comprehend the decisions being made inside the restaurant before anyone knew what would happen next.