A receipt at a restaurant shows a customer drinking a variety of alcohol drinks. Hours later, that customer is involved in a fatal traffic accident. For an attorney investigating potential liability of a dram shop, the receipt is relevant. The receipt does not necessarily show that the restaurant served a clearly drunk client or that employees did not comply with the appropriate procedures. The most relevant evidence could depend on what transpired between those drink orders.
To understand this sequence, it is essential to consider alcohol service as a hospitality operation and not just count drinks after a party.
A receipt records a sale not the status of the customer
The records at the point of sale may reveal when transactions took place, what drinks were bought and the costs put on a bill.
However, a receipt typically doesn’t show how a patron was acting when a drink was served. It may not establish who consumed each beverage and whether or not drinks were shared, nor what the bartender saw.
A qualified Expert Witness will assist attorneys in interpreting the documents together with video surveillance, witness testimony of employees and any other evidence available. It is vital to retrace the order of service, without thinking that every purchase will be the whole story.
What Could Employees Actually Observe?
The most important issue in alcohol-related disputes is whether employees had recognizable reasons to believe the client was drunk. Relevant observations include speech impairment or impaired coordination, difficulties maintaining balance or alteration in behavior.
These indicators need contextualization. One incident recorded on surveillance footage might provide an explanation that is not connected to drinking alcohol. Investigators must also look at the camera’s angle, quality of the recording the position of the employee, as well as if a particular behavior was visible to staff.
Preston Rideout brings experience as a bartender, bar manager, nightclub general manager, and director of bar operations to these evaluations. His operational experience helps him make connections between the obligations and limitations of staff who work in busy hospitality settings.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
The majority of alcohol-related investigations revolve around questions about employee preparation. Did you receive any instruction for server-servers who sold the drinks? Did employees be taught to recognize the signs of intoxication? Management explained the process for refusing to offer any additional services?
These are the questions that form the basis of Responsible alcohol service, but reviewing training certificates alone may not be enough to answer them.
It is possible for an establishment to have specific policies but not necessarily implement the policies. Employees may have adhered to recognized service practices even if the end outcome was tragic.
A review of operations takes into account documents for training and the testimony of employees. The review also examines supervision by management and the actions documented in the incident. It is essential for lawyers representing defense and plaintiffs to discern between the existence and effectiveness of the policy and its application.
Timeline often provides answers to important information
Take a look at a customer who gets drinks from bartenders of different bars during an event that is crowded. The bartender who was first on the scene may have witnessed a normal behavior. Following a shift change an employee from another shift could have served a drink. Then, a manager could have intervened.
It is possible to make these choices appear to be a single continuous action without reconstructing the time line. In reviewing transaction records or staffing plans, video surveillance and incident reports it’s helpful to determine the person who knew what, and when. It’s better to pinpoint missing footage or incomplete documents than relying on speculative speculation.
Legal Liability and Industry Practice are Different Questions
Hospitality experts can provide an explanation of accepted operating guidelines and judge if the behavior of a particular venue was consistent with them.
The court is still the duty of determining liability for legal reasons. The laws that govern alcohol stores vary from state to state and so do the terms under which they may be legally sued.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting supports plaintiff and defense lawyers throughout the world by conducting case review operations analysis, written opinions, depositions and trial testimony. Its work includes alcohol-service decision making, staff training, managerial practices, and any other relevant hospitality operations.
The most robust analysis explains what the evidence does not show
The gravity of an alcohol-related incident cannot decide the truth of all previous information.
Lawyers need to be able discern the types of documents accessible and their limitations in addition to how employees are expected to act in the particular circumstances.
An in-depth analysis of hospitality will differentiate documented and the assumed behavior and identify how the practices of the establishment are consistent with or divergent from accepted standards. That distinction helps courts evaluate what actually happened rather than solely relying on the information that was released in the aftermath.