A nightclub could have bartenders trained and certified and alcohol policies written down as well as a skilled manager at every shift. Those safeguards may look reassuring in a handbook of employees.

Imagine a crowded Saturday night, when multiple bartenders service the same patrons. A floor manager has to deal with an issue, and patrons purchase drinks from multiple places. Who’s accountable for determining when an individual shouldn’t drink or not?

This aspect is more crucial in the dram shop litigation process more than just determining the quantity of drinks sold.

Overservice investigations begin with what Staff members might see

Dram Shop expert witnesses examine whether alcohol-service decision were consistent with industry standards and the actual situations employees had to deal with.

The intoxication of a customer is not proof, on its own that the bartender noticed warning signs when serving. The investigation should consider the behavior of the customer, the timing of service, as well as the observations of staff.

Surveillance footage may have employees engaging with each other, making unusual movements or unable to walk. The testimony of witnesses can give additional background, however their perceptions may differ. It is important to distinguish between what investigators learned following an incident and what the staff could have reasonably known at the time.

One tab isn’t always the same as One Drinker

Records of sales at the point of sale are helpful however, understanding them requires hospitality experience. A customer can purchase several rounds of drinks for their friends. Bottle-service transactions could include more than one individual. Separate bartenders may process orders without recognizing that another employee was serving the order.

Alcohol experts are able to look at the duration of transactions, drinks consumed, surveillance video, and records of staffing to build a complete timeline.

This investigation could reveal times in which employees were able intervene or realize that they were drinking. It could also help identify instances where the evidence isn’t sufficient to establish who drank particular beverages.

It is important to train only when it reaches the floor

While certifications for employees are vital however, they don’t always show how an organization operated during a certain shift.

Investigating whether the training is up-to-date, whether employees are aware of intervention procedures, and whether managers have a strong understanding of the 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.

He also holds 112 seller server certifications covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional credentials.

This combination allows him review the training his employees received and the decisions they had to make. For example, a bartender might recognize the problem but have no clear directions on how to communicate with management or logging a denial of service. In the end, the level of supervision is equally important as the employee’s behavior.

Insurance investigations may ask similar questions

Expert witnesses in the field of liquor liability often is able to address the same operational concerns for insurers, coverage counsel as well as defense attorneys. The terminology might differ but the fundamental investigation is still about alcohol service, staff conduct training, supervision of management.

A thorough review could include incidents reports as well as written policies. They could also comprise video recordings, employee schedules or certification records. The expert’s responsibility to defend an individual who would like them. It’s about describing the reasons for their findings and to identify industry practices that are relevant and accept the significance of limitations.

Experience Helps Explain the Decisions behind the records

Rideout has been a witness in alcohol-related and hospitality matters in 11 states, collaborating as both defense and plaintiff counsel.

His research covers bars, restaurants and nightclubs, as well as hotels, resorts, casinos and other venues for hospitality that serve alcohol on daily basis. Each place has different organizational structures and supervisory issues.

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

Reliable opinions won’t fill gaps using assumptions

The laws for a liquor shop differ based on locality. Expert testimony from operational experts shouldn’t be taken as a legal determination. The most thorough analysis should explain the actions of employees as well as the recognized standards of service that were needed, and what conclusions are based on the evidence.

Sometimes, records reveal a deviation from the standard procedure. They could also reveal that an employee complied with the correct methods or did not respond to key questions.

It is essential to distinguish between these two when lawyers are in evaluating claims involving alcohol. An expert’s opinion is more than a description of the event. The court is able to understand the decisions made in the establishment, even if nobody could tell what the final outcome would be.