Nightclubs can have bartenders trained and certified, written alcohol policies, and a knowledgeable manager for each shift. The security measures may appear comforting when they are incorporated in an employee manual.

Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is packed, with bartenders serving the exact same group of patrons, and an employee on the floor manages crowds and customers placing orders for drinks from different locations. Who is accountable for recognizing when a person should not drink alcohol?

This could reveal more about a dram shop lawsuit than simply finding out how many drinks were sold.

The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to look at what the staff members could be seeing

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

The presence of alcohol in a person is not proof, on its own that the bartender noticed warning signs while serving. The investigation must consider the manner in which the customer behaved, the timing of the service, the observations of staff, and any available evidence.

Surveillance videos may reveal employees interfering with one or with one another, doing unusual moves or having difficulty walking. Witness testimony can provide further background, however their perceptions may differ. It is crucial to distinguish between what investigators learned about an incident, and what personnel could have reasonably known in the moment.

One tab isn’t always the same as One Drink

Point-of-sale records are useful however understanding them requires a lot of experience in the hospitality industry. A single customer could purchase multiple rounds of drinks for their friends. A bottle-service transaction could involve several people. Separate bartenders could handle orders without knowing what the previous employee did.

Alcohol experts can look over transaction times, drink quantities, video surveillance, and the records of staffing in order to build a complete timeline.

This investigation could reveal times in which employees were able intervene or acknowledge that they were drinking. This analysis can also show when there isn’t enough evidence to establish the individual who consumed one particular beverage.

Training is only relevant until it reaches the floor

The certifications of employees are vital but they’re not a guarantee to reveal how a location operated during a particular shift.

The investigation of whether the training is up to date, if employees know the correct procedures for intervention, and if managers are able to reinforce procedures can form 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.

Professionally, his credentials show that he holds 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states, and the District of Columbia.

The combination of these two allows him to look at the education that employees received and their operational decision-making. For example the bartender may be aware of the problem but have no clear direction about contacting management or reporting a refusal of service. The adequacy of supervision can therefore become just as important as the individual behavior of the employee.

The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions

A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for coverage counsel, insurers defense lawyers, and coverage counsel. The terminology might differ but the primary investigation is still about the alcohol service, conduct of staff, training, and supervision by management.

An exhaustive review can include incidents reports, written policies, video recordings employees’ schedules, certificates, records, and deposition testimony. It’s not the role of the expert to endorse the company that employs them. It is to explain the reasons for their findings and identify the relevant practices in the industry and recognize the limitations that are significant.

The Experience of the past explains the reasoning behind the Records

Rideout has appeared in court on alcohol-related and hospitality matters in 11 states, and has worked with both defense and plaintiff counsel.

His research is a comprehensive look at restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, in addition to resorts, hotels, casinos and other venues for hospitality that serve alcohol on a daily basis. Each setting has its own issues with staffing and supervision.

A bartender working in a tiny dining room in a restaurant could have a different opportunity to observe customers than employees at a busy nightclub service station. Knowing the differences can help place the evidence into the proper context of operation.

The credibility of opinions doesn’t fill in gaps using assumptions

Dram shop laws vary by jurisdiction. Expert evidence from experts in operational matters cannot be interpreted as legal advice. The strongest analysis explains the actions of employees and what the accepted service practices required, and which conclusions the available evidence can be relied upon to support.

Sometimes, records indicate the fact that a change is observed from standard procedure. They may also indicate that an employee adhered to the proper methods or did not respond to key questions.

This distinction is important for attorneys who are evaluating claims involving alcohol. An expert’s opinion is more useful than just describe what happened. It assists the court to understand the decisions made within the restaurant before anyone knew how the night would conclude.