The receipt of a restaurant reveals that a customer ordered several alcohol-based beverages. After a few hours the same person is involved with a serious accident. For an attorney investigating potential Dram shop liability the receipt will be relevant. However, it’s not a sure way to determine whether the restaurant served an intoxicated customer or if employees did not follow appropriate procedures. It’s possible that the evidence is more compelling depending on what happened in between drinks.
To fully comprehend this sequence it is essential to consider the hospitality aspect of alcohol as an operation and not just count beverages following an event.
A receipt records a sale and not the actual condition of a buyer
Documents at the time of sale will reveal the date and time transactions took place, which beverages have been purchased and the amount included in a bill.
A receipt is not able to reveal the behavior of a person when served an alcohol drink. It is not always possible to know who drank the drinks, if they were shared, 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. The aim is to reconstruct the sequence of service without believing that each purchase is the entire story.
What could employees actually observe?
The most important issue in disputes over alcohol-related service is whether staff members had sufficient evidence to conclude that the person was drunk. The relevant observations might include impairment in coordination, abnormal speech or speech patterns, difficulties maintaining equilibrium or observable changes in behavior.
But these indicators need contextualization. A single action captured on surveillance footage could provide an explanation that is not connected to alcohol consumption. Investigators must also consider camera angles, quality of recording position of employees and if the behavior might be visible to the staff.
Preston Rideout has experience as a nightclub manager as well as bar manager, director of bar operations, and bartender. The operational knowledge he has gained helps him make connections between the responsibilities and limitations of staff who work in busy hospitality settings.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
In all alcohol-related investigation the questions revolve around the preparation of the employee. Did the establishment offer server-seller instruction? Did employees learn to spot possible intoxication? Did management explain ways to deny additional service?
The answers to these questions may lie in the training certificates However, they’re not sufficient.
It can be possible for a facility to have comprehensive policies however, they may not always follow the policies. In the other case the employee could have complied with the rules of service even if it was tragic.
A review of operations considers the training materials and testimony from employees. It also considers the oversight of management as well as the actions documented in the incident. The difference between the existence of a policy and its actual implementation can be vital for both plaintiff and defense counsel.
The Timeline of times reveals the crucial questions
Take a look at a client served by several bartenders the same time during the course of a busy evening. It’s likely that the bartender who served the first patron observed normal behaviour. Following a shift change, the bartender in question may have served a different drink. A manager could intervened following the shift change.
It’s possible to make these decisions appear to be a single continuous act of service without reconstructing the timeline. In reviewing transaction records and staffing plans, as well as incidents and surveillance footage, it can be helpful to identify the person who knew what and the time. It’s better to find out whether there’s missing files or videos, instead of speculating.
Legal Liability and the Practice of Industry are Different Questions
Hospitality experts can provide an explanation of accepted operational practices and determine if the behavior of a particular venue was consistent with them.
They are not a substitute for the responsibility of the court to decide legal liability. The laws for alcohol-related shops differ from state to as do the rules in which they are brought into court.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting assists plaintiff and defendant lawyers across the country with reviewing cases, analyzing operations, written opinions, and depositions. The company’s focus is on alcohol-related decisions and staff training.
The most robust analysis explains what the evidence does not show
The seriousness of an alcohol-related incident is not able to determine all previous facts.
Lawyers need to be able identify the documents that are available and their limits and also how employees would have been expected to act in specific circumstances.
A thorough analysis of hospitality separates the actions that are documented from assumptions and explains where the venue’s policies matched or differed from the accepted norms. This distinction allows courts to determine what happened instead of having to rely on only what was discovered after the fact.