A receipt from an eatery shows a patron who has ordered several drinks of alcohol. After a few hours, the customer is involved in a serious traffic collision. For an attorney investigating potential Dram shop liability the receipt will be relevant. It’s not a sure way to determine if the establishment served someone who clearly drunk, or in the event that employees didn’t adhere to procedures. It’s possible that the evidence is more compelling by looking at what happened in between drinks.

In order to understand the process, it is necessary to take a look at the alcohol services as a part of a genuine hospitality operation. It is not enough to simply take a look at the number of drinks consumed after an incident.

A receipt records a sale not the status of the customer

Documents at the time of sale may reveal when transactions occurred, what drinks were bought, and what charges were added to the bill.

But, receipts generally does not reveal how a person was acting at the time a drink was served. It is not able to determine the person who consumed each drink and whether or not drinks were shared or not, or even 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 important to reconstruct the process of service, but not believing that each purchase will tell the whole story.

What are the things employees can actually see?

In a number of disputes concerning alcohol-related services, the primary issue is whether the staff could have any reason to suspect that a client was drunk. Some of the signs that could be relevant are speech impairment or impaired coordination inability to maintain balance, or shifts in behavior.

However, these indicators need the context. A single act recorded on surveillance footage might be explained in a way that is not related to alcohol consumption. Investigators must also look at camera angles, quality of recording employees’ positions, and whether the particular behavior could have been visible to staff.

Preston Rideout has experience as manager of a nightclub as well as bar manager director of bar operations and bartender. His operational experience helps him identify the obligations and limitations for employees working in bustling hospitality environments.

Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice

In most alcohol-service investigation, questions are asked about the preparation of the employee. Did the establishment offer server-seller instruction? Was the establishment able to educate its employees on the signs of intoxication? Management explained the procedure for refusing to offer any additional services?

These questions are central to responsible alcohol services, however the review of training certificates alone might not be enough to answer them.

The place may have guidelines in place, but fails to consistently implement them. On the other hand, employees may have followed the established procedures for service even when the eventual outcome was devastating.

A review of operations considers the training materials, employee testimony supervision by management, as well as the actions documented during the incident. It is crucial for plaintiffs’ and defense counsel to discern between the existence of policy and its implementation.

Timeline often answers important questions

Imagine a customer who is served drinks by different bartenders during a busy night. It’s possible that the initial employee observed a normal manner of conduct. After a shift switch, another bartender could have served a different beverage. A manager later, could have intervened.

Without retracing the timeline that is the case, these decisions could appear to be one continuous act of service. Retrospectively reviewing personnel schedules, transaction records surveillance footage, incident reports together can help identify who was in charge and when. It’s better to know if there are any missing records or footage, instead of making speculations.

The issues of liability under the law and practice in the industry are distinct.

Hospitality experts can explain recognized operating procedures and assess whether the conduct of a place was in line with them.

The laws are not meant to replace a court’s ability to determine the legal liability. There are different laws for each state on the legal responsibility of alcohol retailers.

Rideout Hospitality Consulting supports plaintiff and defense lawyers across the country through case reviews operations analysis, depositions, writing opinions and trial testimony. Its services address alcohol-related issues as well as staff training, management techniques, and other hospitality-related operations.

The most powerful analysis explains why the evidence can’t prove

An incident involving alcohol could cause a lot of damage, but the severity of the result is not able to establish the exact date of the incident.

Attorneys should be aware of documents available, the limits of these records, as well as the manner in which employees were expected operate under the circumstances.

A thorough analysis of hospitality can differentiate documented and assumed behaviours and explain where the venue’s practices are consistent with or divergent from the accepted norms. This distinction lets courts evaluate what happened instead of using only the information found after the fact.