A receipt from a restaurant reveals that the customer ordered multiple alcohol-based drinks. A few hours later the same customer has been in a serious crash. The receipt might be pertinent to an attorney seeking to determine the potential liability of the victim of a Dramshop. The receipt is not required to establish that the restaurant provided a clearly drunk patron or that employees did not comply with the appropriate procedures. What transpired between drink orders could be more clear.
Understanding this sequence requires studying the alcohol industry as a hospitality service, not just taking note of the number of drinks consumed after an incident.
Receipts record a sale not a customer’s condition
Documents at the time of sale can reveal when transactions took place, what drinks were purchased and the charges included in a bill.
A receipt is not able to reveal the behavior of a person when they were served a drink. It is not always possible to know who drank the drink, particularly if they were shared or what the bartender saw.
An expert witness can assist attorneys with the interpretation of these documents with regard to the surveillance footage and statements of employees. The objective is to reconstruct service sequences without assuming each purchase tells the whole story.
What are the things employees can actually observe?
The primary issue in all alcohol-related disputes is whether the staff could have had the basis to conclude that the person was drunk. Relevant observations include impaired speech or coordination inability to maintain balance, or modifications in behavior.
Yet these indicators require contextualization. Just a single moment captured in surveillance footage might be unrelated to alcohol. Investigators should be aware of the camera’s angle, the recording quality the position of the employee, as well as whether a specific behavior was observed by staff.
Preston Rideout’s work as a professional bartender as well as manager of a bar, general manager of a nightclub, and director of bar operations is apparent in these reviews. His practical experience allows him to connect recorded evidence to the roles and limitations of staff working in bustling hospitality settings.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
Most alcohol-service investigations involve questions regarding preparation for employees. Was there any training for the servers-sellers? Did the establishment provide training to employees to spot signs of intoxication? Management was clear on the reasons for refusing to offer any additional services?
These questions are central to Responsible alcohol service service, but reviewing training certificates alone may not answer them.
A facility may maintain specific guidelines but not always follow them. In contrast, an employee may have followed the guidelines even if it was tragic.
A review of operations takes into account information on training materials as well as employee testimony. It also takes into account supervision by management and the specific actions described in the incident. Both defense and plaintiff attorneys will benefit from the distinction between the existence of an policy and its actual execution.
The Timeline of times reveals the crucial questions
Think about a client being served by multiple bartenders at the same time on a busy night. The first employee may be observing normal behavior. After a shift switch, another bartender might have served a different drink. The manager may have intervened.
It’s possible to make these decisions appear to be a single continuous action without having to reconstruct the timeline. When reviewing transaction records, staffing plans, surveillance footage, and incident reports it’s helpful to know who was aware of what, and the time. The absence of footage or the inadequacy of records should also be identified rather than rewritten with speculation.
Legal Liability and Industry Practice are two distinct issues
Professionals in hospitality can provide explanations and judge if a facility is following recognized operating procedures.
These laws don’t replace the court’s power to decide the legal responsibilities. The laws that govern alcohol stores differ from state to as do the rules that they can be sued.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting assists plaintiff and defendant attorneys across the nation with review of the case, analysis of operations, written opinions and depositions. The company’s work focuses on alcohol-related decisions staff training, management methods, and other pertinent hospitality operations.
The most robust analysis explains what the evidence does not show
An alcohol-related incident can be devastating, but the severity of the incident is not able to establish the exact date of the incident.
Attorneys must be aware of the available records, the limits of these records, as well as how employees were expected to perform under the circumstances.
An in-depth analysis of hospitality will separate documented actions from preconceived behaviours and show where the venue’s practices are in line with or differ from the accepted norms. The courts then have the ability to evaluate the events in question rather than just relying on what they learnt later.