A receipt from a restaurant indicates that the customer ordered a number of alcohol-based drinks. The next day, that person is involved in a fatal traffic accident. The receipt is essential for an attorney looking into potential Dram shop liability. It doesn’t necessarily establish whether the restaurant served an obviously intoxicated person or if employees failed to comply with the appropriate procedure. It’s possible that the evidence is more compelling by looking at what transpired between drinks.
Understanding the order of events requires an examination of the alcohol industry as a hospitality operation, not simply taking note of the number of drinks consumed after an incident.
Receipts record a sale but not the state of a client
The point-of-sale records is used to identify the date the transaction took place, which beverages were purchased, and what charges are assigned to a tab.
But, receipts generally will not show how a client behaved when they were served a drink. It’s not always possible to establish who drank the drink, even if they were shared, or even what the bartender observed.
An expert witness who is qualified will assist lawyers in understanding the records and also the surveillance footage, testimony from employees and other evidence available. The aim is to reconstruct the service sequence without assuming that each purchase will tell the whole story.
What are the things employees can actually see?
A central question in many disputes involving alcohol-related services is whether the staff had recognizable reasons to believe that a customer was drunk. Relevant observations include speech impairment or impaired coordination troubles with balance or modifications in behavior.
But these indicators require some context. Even a single act captured on surveillance video could be a cause that is not related to alcohol. Investigators should also look at the camera’s angle, the quality of recording location of employees, and if a particular behavior was apparent to employees.
Preston Rideout’s experience as a seasoned bartender and bar manager and general manager of a nightclub, as well as director of bar operations is evident in these assessments. His operational experience helps him connect recorded evidence to the responsibilities and limitations for employees who work in busy hospitality establishments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
In all alcohol-related investigation inquiries, questions are asked regarding the preparation of the employee. Does the establishment provide the seller-servers training for its employees? Did the establishment teach its employees how to identify intoxication? Management explained the procedure for refusing to provide additional services?
These questions are central to Responsible alcohol service service, but reviewing training certificates alone may not answer them.
It is possible for a venue to have specific policies but not necessarily implement them. Conversely, employees may have followed recognized service practices regardless of the outcome was devastating.
An operational review takes into account training materials and employee testimony. The review also examines the management’s oversight and the actions documented during the incident. Both plaintiffs and defense attorneys are able to benefit from a distinction between the presence of a policy and its actual implementation.
Timeline often answers important questions
Imagine a person being served drinks by different bartenders at a busy time. The first employee may have noticed the normal behavior. A second bartender might have served another beverage after a shift change. Managers could have intervened later.
The decision-making process could be seen as unending service, in the event that the timeline is not reconstructed. Reviewing transactions records, staffing schedules, surveillance footage, and incident reports together can help identify who was in charge and when. It’s much better to discover any missing footage or uncomplete reports than relying on speculative speculation.
Industry Practice and legal Liability are two different issues
Hospitality experts can provide an explanation of accepted operational practices and determine if the behavior of a particular venue was consistent with them.
These laws don’t replace the power of a court to decide legal responsibility. The laws that govern alcohol stores differ from state to, as do the conditions in which they are brought into court.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting provides support for defense lawyers and plaintiffs in the United States of America through review of cases, operational analysis, written opinions, trial testimony, depositions and other types of evidence. The focus of its work is on alcohol-related choices and training for staff.
The strongest analysis accounts for What the Evidence Do Not Support
Alcohol-related incidents can have serious consequences, but the severity is not determined by all the evidence.
Lawyers must identify the documents that are available and their limitations as well as the way employees should have been expected to act in the situation.
An exhaustive analysis of hospitality practices will distinguish documented actions from accepted behavior patterns and clarify how the practices of the establishment are in line with or differ from the accepted norms. That distinction helps courts evaluate the events that actually occurred rather than relying solely on the information that was released later on.