A nightclub may have trained bartenders, written alcohol policies, and an experienced manager on each shift. In the employee handbook, these guidelines can appear reassuring.

But imagine a packed Saturday night, when multiple bartenders are serving the same group or a floor manager managing a disturbance, and customers are ordering rounds at different places. Who’s responsible for determining if somebody shouldn’t have alcohol in the future?

This question is more telling in the context of dram shops litigation, rather than merely determining the number of drinks sold.

The first stage in the investigation of overservice is to determine what staff members might be seeing.

Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether the decisions made regarding alcohol-related services were consistent with industry norms and the actual situations employees had to deal with.

The intoxication of a customer doesn’t prove, by itself that the bartender spotted warning signs while serving. The investigation must consider the manner in which the customer behaved, the timing of service and employees’ observations.

Surveillance footage may show employees interacting with each with each other, performing strange movements or having trouble walking. Statements from witnesses may provide more details, however recollections of events may differ. There is a significant distinction between the knowledge of investigators following an incident, and what the staff could reasonably have known at the time.

One tab doesn’t necessarily mean One Drink

The records at the point of sale are useful, but they require experience with hospitality to interpret. A patron could purchase multiple rounds of beer to share with friends. Bottle-service transactions can be performed by more than one person. Bartenders can be separate and take orders and not know what an employee has previously done.

Alcohol experts are able to look at the timings of transactions, alcohol consumption video surveillance, as well as the staffing records to create a complete timeline.

This type of analysis can reveal instances when employees had the chance to identify intoxication or intervene. It is also a way to pinpoint situations where evidence is not enough to establish who had consumed specific beverages.

The Floor is where the Training Matters

Certifications of employees are crucial but they’re not enough to reveal how a location operated during a particular shift.

Investigations may examine whether or not employees are adequately trained, whether they understand the intervention procedures and whether managers have reinforced policies.

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, plus the District of Columbia.

The combination of these two allows him to look at both the training that employees were given and their practical decisions. Bartenders, for example might be able identify a behavior that is alarming, but they may not have clear instructions on how to report it or how to contact management. As a result, the level of supervision is just as important as an employee’s behavior.

Insurance Investigations May ask Similar Questions

A witness from the Liquor liability specialist often will address the same operational problems for coverage counsel and insurers as well as defense attorneys. Although the terminology used may differ, the examination is still centered on alcohol services, employee conduct, management oversight, and training.

A thorough review may include incident reports, written policies recordings of video, employee schedules, certification records, as well as deposition testimony. The responsibility of the expert is not to support the person in the process of retaining the expert. It’s to describe the evidence that supports it and identify the relevant practices in the industry, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.

Experience Explains the Decisions behind the Records

Rideout has served as a witness in alcohol-related service and hospitality cases in 11 states. He has acted with both plaintiff and defense attorneys.

His research focuses on bars, restaurants, nightclubs, hotels resorts, casinos, and other venues in which alcohol is a part of the everyday operations. Each place has different staffing structures and supervisory challenges.

A bartender serving a small dining room in a restaurant could have a different chance to observe customers than employees at a busy nightclub’s service station. Knowing the differences can help place the evidence within its proper operational context.

Trustworthy opinions can’t fill in gaps with assumptions

The laws for a liquor shop differ based on the jurisdiction in which they are located. Expert testimony from operational experts shouldn’t be taken as a legal decision. The most accurate analysis will reveal the activities of the employees in the manner that was recognized as a service practice were needed, and what conclusions are reasonable on the basis of the evidence.

Sometimes, records reveal a deviation from established procedures. They could also reveal that an employee complied with the correct practices or did not answer crucial questions.

It is vital to differentiate between the two for lawyers evaluating alcohol-related claims. A useful expert opinion does more than describe the incident. It helps the court understand the decisions being made inside the establishment before anyone knew the outcome of the night.