Bartenders in nightclubs know their stuff with alcohol-related policies, written down, and have an experienced manager on every shift. These safeguards could be reassured in a handbook for employees.

But imagine a packed Saturday night, when multiple bartenders serve the same customers while a floor supervisor is taking care of a disturbance, while customers are ordering drinks from various locations. Who is accountable to know when a person is no longer a candidate for alcohol?

In a dram shop lawsuit, this issue can be more important than finding out how many drinks were sold.

At first, the staff can see the signs of an investigation for overservice.

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 prove that a bartender was aware of warning indicators. The investigation should consider the customer’s behavior and the timing of service, the observations of staff as well as evidence.

Surveillance footage could reveal difficulties walking, unusual movements or even interactions with employees. The statements of witnesses can provide more context, though recollections can differ. The important distinction is between the knowledge of investigators after an incident and what the staff could reasonably have known in the moment.

One Tab Doesn’t Necessarily Mean One Drinker

The points-of-sale records can be helpful, but they require hospitality experience to read. A customer could buy several rounds of beer to share with friends. There could be multiple people involved in a bottle-service transaction. Different bartenders could process orders without recognizing that a different employee served the order.

Alcohol expert witnesses can review time of transactions, quantities of alcohol consumed as well as video surveillance and the records of staffing in order to develop a comprehensive timeline.

The analysis can identify instances when employees could have acted or detected intoxication. It can also reveal where the evidence is not sufficient to establish who drank particular drinks.

The Floor is where the Training Matters

The certification of employees is important 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 if managers are able to reinforce procedures can form part of the investigation.

Preston Rideout is a seasoned hospitality professional who has more than three decades of expertise. This includes bartending, management and consulting on beverage programs.

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

The combination of the two lets him examine the education that employees were given and their practical decisions. For example Bartenders may recognize the problem but have no clear direction about contacting management or documenting a refusal of service. As a result, the level of supervision is equally important as the employee’s actions.

Insurance investigations might ask similar questions

A specialist witness for liquor liability usually deals with the same operational issues for coverage counsel and insurers as well as defense attorneys. While the language used may differ but the core issue is the service of alcohol and the conduct of staff.

The complete review might include incident reports, written policies, videos employee schedules, certificates. It’s not the expert’s job to support an individual who would like them. It’s to describe the evidence that supports it as well as identify pertinent industry practices and identify the significant limitations.

Experience is a key factor in determining the reasons that are behind the documents

Rideout has been an alcohol service witness and hospitality cases across eleven states. He has worked as a witness for plaintiffs as well as defense lawyers.

His research focuses on bars, restaurants, nightclubs, hotels, resorts, casinos, as well as other settings for hospitality where alcohol service is part of the day-to-day operations. Each setting has its own supervisory and staffing challenges.

A bartender serving a small dining area in a restaurant may have a different opportunity to observe customers compared to employees working at a bustling nightclub’s service station. Knowing these differences will help put the evidence within the proper context of operation.

Credible opinion doesn’t fill gaps by making assumptions

Dram shop laws vary by the jurisdiction in which they are located. Expert testimony from operational experts cannot be interpreted as legal advice. The most accurate analysis explains what employees did as well as what accepted practices for service required, and what conclusions the evidence supports.

Sometimes, the documents reveal a departure from established procedures. Sometimes, the records show that employees adhered to appropriate methods or left critical questions unanswered.

It is essential to distinguish between the two for lawyers evaluating alcohol-related claims. An expert opinion is useful and does more than just describe the event. It helps the court understand what was happening inside the premises even before the time of the night was over.