A receipt from a dining establishment shows that the patron ordered several alcohol-based drinks. A few hours later the same patron is involved in a serious accident. The receipt could be useful to an attorney who is investigating potential liability for an alleged Dramshop. It’s not necessarily a proof of whether the restaurant served someone who clearly drunk or in the event that employees didn’t adhere to procedures. More revealing evidence might depend on what transpired between those drinks ordered.
Understanding that sequence requires examining the alcohol service as a real hospitality business, not just taking note of the number of drinks consumed after an incident.
Receipts are evidence of a sale and does not reflect the condition of the buyer.
The record at the point of sale can be used to determine when the transaction occurred, what drinks were bought and the charges are allocated to a tab.
The receipt won’t reveal what the customer’s actions were when the drinks were ordered. It might not reveal who was drinking each drink or whether the drinks were shared, nor what a bartender observed.
A skilled Expert Witness can help attorneys interpret these records in relation to video surveillance, employee statements and other evidence. It is essential to reconstruct the entire sequence of services without presuming that every purchase tells the complete story.
What is the most employees could actually observe?
The main issue in alcohol-service disputes concerns whether staff have plausible grounds to conclude that the patron was intoxicated. The relevant observations include impaired coordination or speech problems, difficulty maintaining balance or shifts in behavior.
Yet these indicators require contextualization. A single act recorded on surveillance footage might have explanations unrelated to alcohol consumption. Investigators must also take into consideration the quality of the footage angles, the position of the employees and the camera angles.
Preston Rideout’s experiences as a seasoned bartender as well as manager of a bar general manager at a nightclub, and director of bar operations is evident in these assessments. His practical experience allows him to connect recorded evidence to the duties and limitations for employees working in bustling hospitality environments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
In all alcohol-related investigation inquiries, questions are asked regarding the preparation of the employee. Was there any training for the seller-servers? Did the establishment train its employees on how to recognize intoxication? Did management discuss 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 an establishment to have comprehensive policies but not consistently implement them. In the reverse scenario the employee could have followed the guidelines even if it was tragic.
An operational review considers information on training, employee testimony, management oversight, and the actions that were documented during the incident. It is important for both attorneys representing the plaintiffs and defense to distinguish between the existence and effectiveness of the policy and its implementation.
The Timeline of times reveals the crucial Questions
Imagine a customer who is served drinks by a variety of bartenders during a busy night. It’s likely that the bartender who served the first patron was observing a typical behavior. Following a shift change, a second employee may serve a second drink. The manager may intervened following the shift change.
It is possible to make these decisions appear to be one continuous action without having to reconstruct the timeline. Analyzing all the records including transaction logs and staffing plans as well as surveillance footage and the incident report together, can clarify who knew when and what. It’s best to find out whether there’s any missing documents or footage instead of making speculations.
The issues of liability under the law and practice in the industry are distinct.
Hospitality professionals can discuss accepted operational practices and determine if the conduct of a place was in line with them.
They do not replace the responsibility of the court to decide the legality of the liability. The laws regarding alcohol shops differ from state-to-state, as do the conditions within which they may be legally sued.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting supports plaintiff and defense lawyers throughout the world by conducting case review operations analysis, depositions, writing opinions as well as trial testimony. The company’s focus is on alcohol-related decisions and staff training.
The most thorough analysis clarifies what the evidence doesn’t show
The severity of an alcohol-related incident is not able to be used to determine the validity of previous events.
The attorney must understand the available records in the case, their limitations, and the expectations for employees in the circumstances.
A careful hospitality analysis separates evidence from an assumption and clarifies where the establishment’s practices matched up with or diverged from the accepted norms. The courts will then be able to judge the actual events instead of relying solely on the lessons they have learned.