A receipt in the restaurant shows a person having a drink or two. Within a couple of hours the same patron is injured in a fatal accident. In the case of an attorney looking into potential Dram shop liability the receipt can be used as evidence. It doesn’t necessarily establish if the restaurant served a person who was clearly drunk or if employees didn’t follow procedures. What transpired between drink orders might be more important.
Understanding the order of events requires an examination of the alcohol service as a real hospitality operation, not simply recording the amount of alcohol consumed following an incident.
Receipts record a sale not the status of a client
The records at the point of sale can reveal when transactions occurred, which drinks were purchased, and what charges were assigned to a tab.
The receipt will not reveal the behavior of a person when they were served a drink. It’s not always possible to determine who consumed the drinks, especially if they were shared, or what the bartender was watching.
An experienced Expert Witness can help attorneys interpret these records alongside surveillance footage, employee statements, and other available evidence. It is crucial to decipher the entire sequence of services without believing that each purchase will tell the complete story.
What can employees observe?
One of the most crucial issues in alcohol-related disputes is whether employees had recognizable reasons to believe a patron was intoxicated. These could be evidence of impaired coordination, strange speaking and a difficulty in maintaining equilibrium or observable behavioral changes.
But these indicators do require context. A single incident on surveillance video could be unrelated to alcohol. Investigators must also take into account the camera angle, the recording quality location of employees, and the degree to which an incident was evident to the staff.
Preston Rideout brings experience as bar manager, bartender general manager of nightclubs, and director of operations for bars to these evaluations. His background in operation helps connect recorded evidence with the responsibilities and limitations of staff working in fast-paced hospitality environments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
The majority of investigations into alcohol-related service concentrate on preparation for employees. Did the establishment provide seller-server training? Did the establishment train its employees on how to spot intoxication? Did management explain ways to deny additional service?
While these are questions that are vital for the Responsible Alcohol Service (RACS), reviewing just training certificates might not be enough to address them.
A facility may maintain specific policies without consistently implementing them. In contrast, employees might follow established practices in service even if the end result was tragic.
A thorough review of operational elements includes documents for training, employee testimony, management oversight and incidents that are documented. The difference between the existence of a policy and its actual implementation can be vital for both defense and plaintiff counsel.
The Timeline of times reveals the crucial questions
Imagine a customer being served drinks by a variety of bartenders at a busy time. The first employee might have seen a typical behavior. Following a shift change, a second employee may serve a second drink. Managers could have intervened in the future.
These decisions may appear as continuous services when the timeline isn’t recreated. Examining the transaction records, staffing schedules, surveillance footage, and incident reports together can help identify who was in charge and when. The absence of footage or the inadequacy of records should be identified instead of being replaced by speculation.
Lawful Liability and Industry Practice are Different Issues
Hospitality professionals can help explain and evaluate if a venue follows the established operating guidelines.
These laws do not replace a court’s ability to determine the legal responsibilities. The laws for liquor shops differ between states, and also the conditions under which alcohol providers may be subject to civil lawsuits.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting provides support to plaintiffs and defense attorneys in the United State through case reviews, operational analyses writing opinions depositions, trial testimony and other types of evidence. The company’s work focuses on alcohol-related decisions and staff training, as well as practices for management, as well as other relevant hospitality operations.
The strongest analysis accounts for What the Evidence Cannot Show
The severity of an alcohol-related incident cannot be a conclusive indicator of the previous circumstances.
Attorneys should be aware of available records, the limits of these records, as well as the way employees were expected to operate under the circumstances.
An exhaustive analysis of hospitality practices will distinguish documented actions from accepted behavior patterns and clarify how the practices of the establishment are aligned or deviated from the accepted norms. This distinction allows courts to determine what occurred instead of using only the information discovered after the fact.